EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Brussels, 6.6.2016

SWD(2016) 189 final

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

Implementation Plan

Accompanying the document

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2009/45/EC on safety rules and standards for passenger ships

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Directive 98/41/EC on the registration of persons sailing on board passenger ships operating to or from ports of the Member States of the Community and amending Directive 2010/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on reporting formalities for ships arriving in and/or departing from ports of the Member States

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on a system of inspections for the safe operation of ro-ro ferry and high-speed passenger craft in regular service and amending Directive 2009/16/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on port State control and repealing Council Directive 1999/35/EC

{COM(2016) 369 final}
{COM(2016) 370 final}
{COM(2016) 371 final}
{SWD(2016) 190 final}

Implementation Plan 1

1. Contact point

The responsible Commission service is Unit D.2 – Maritime safety – in DG MOVE.

Mailbox: PASSENGER-SHIP-SAFETY@ec.europa.eu

Website: http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/maritime/safety/passenger_ships_en.htm

2. Deliverables and implementation challenges

An overarching objective of this review is to provide for a clear, simple and up-to-date legal framework that is easier to implement, monitor and enforce, increasing thus the overall safety level. The review includes a number of clarification provisions that will necessitate adjustments in Member States with diverging interpretations. It also provides for new procedures that will in certain cases require both Member States and companies to adjust their current processes.

Member States should incorporate all amendments into their legislation and pay particular attention to the fact that Directive 1999/35/EC is replaced by a new Directive. The following implementation challenges have been identified in concrete terms:

2.1    Amendments to Directive 2009/45/EC

a.Offshore service vessels

These vessels should fall outside the scope of the Directive. Therefore, the 2 offshore service vessels that have been reported as certified under the Directive by DK would need to be re-certified. This should take place within the regular certification cycle.

b.Traditional and sailing ships

These vessels should fall outside the scope of the Directive. The existing 45-50 rig-sailing ships (primarily registered in NL) certified under the Directive would therefore need to be re-certified according to the national applicable standards. This should take place within the regular certification cycle.

c.Aluminium built ships

These vessels should fall in the scope of the Directive. Currently, ca. 100 of these vessels sailing in France and Italy have not been certified according to the Directive and should be re-certified accordingly. The corresponding technical standards included in the Annex should be clarified in cooperation with national experts and adopted as soon as possible after the adoption of the amended Directive by the Legislators.

The costs of retro-fitting these vessels with adequate fire insulation such that they will comply with the Directive's safety standard would depend on the case by case basis and will be determined by the residual value at the ship in the moment of retro-fitting. Some of these vessels are likely to be phased out because of their normal life cycle. In any case, a sufficient transition period should be envisaged to smooth the adjustment to the maximum extent possible and to plan the technical updates, if any.

d.Simplification of sea areas

7 Member States reported that the proposed simplification would entail a need to modify their current definition of sea areas (NL, DE, PL, PT, SE, UK and one MS).

e.Notifications of exemptions, equivalencies and additional measures

To minimise cost implications for Member States, an existing platform such as CIRCA should be used as a database containing the notifications, additional information, Commission decisions and the final adopted measures. Access rights will however have to be developed together with Member States' experts.

f.Small ships

Small ships built from steel or equivalent material would no longer fall under the scope of the Directive. The ca. 70 small ships currently certified under the Directive should be therefore re-certified in the standard cycle and for the newly built ones, national legislation would apply.

2.2    Amendments to Directive 98/41/EC

a.Clarification of the scope of application

It should be clarified that Directive 98/41/EC applies only until the inner border of sea area D. This would not impact on Member States' own definitions of sea area boundaries and it would remain within the discretion of Member States to decide where sea area D should end (i.e. on its inner border) and where other areas should start (and how they should be demarcated), such as ports, estuaries or similar sheltered areas, inland waterways etc. Nonetheless, the common map of sea areas should be clarified with Member States.

b.Short voyages: Information on number of persons on board

Information on the number of persons should be recorded by operators to the National Single Window or made available by means of Automatic Identification System (AIS). Whether this will have impact on companies' processes would depend on a case-by-case basis, determined by their individual use of IT. In this context, it should be left to the national administration to assess whether AIS exemptions granted under different legal and market situations remain justified. Without prejudice to the full implementation of National Single Window by Member States, the operational decision on the interface between the National Single Window and the operators should be taken at national level.

c.Long voyages: Passenger and crew lists

Information on passengers and crew should be transmitted by operators to the National Single Window. In principle, recording the lists to National Single Window is a similar action to recording them in the registration system of the company (i.e. as long as they are in an electronic format). Depending on a case-by-case basis, recording the lists in National Single Window may, in addition to the company's operation system, require an internet connection. Without prejudice to the full implementation of National Single Window by Member States, the operational decision on the interface between the National Single Window and the operators should be taken at national level.

d.Nationality

Information on nationality should be added to the already collected information (name, date of birth, etc.), for passengers on a basis of self-declaration as it is currently the case. Only minor adjustments are expected both for the companies and Member States in this respect.

e.Verification

Member States should verify the accuracy and timeliness of data registration required by this Directive. The choice of means and frequency of such verification should be decided by Member States, similarly to the currently required random checks.

2.3    New Directive replacing Directive 1999/35/EC and amendments to Directive 2009/16/EC on port State control

a.Vessels outside the scope of port State control

These vessels should remain in the scope of the new Directive. Therefore the changes relate primarily to a number of clarified or updated provisions of the new Directive.

More specifically, the new Directive provides for an explicit provision that the specific ro-pax inspection may, at the discretion of the Member State, be carried out at the same time as or in conjunction with the annual flag State survey. On average, this would reduce the inspection burden from the ship perspective from 3 to 2 inspections per year. Simplification for national authorities would be determined on the case-by-case basis, depending on by whom, when and how the inspection is carried out.

b.For vessels subject to port State control

These current inspection requirements for these vessels should be transferred into Directive 2009/16/EC on port State control. On average, this would reduce the inspection burden from the ship perspective from 4 to 3 inspections per year. For national administrations, the reduction should be even more substantial, given that according to the current requirements, every ro-pax inspection should be in principle carried out jointly by 2 (or more) host States.

From an operational perspective, the only change in comparison to status quo would be for ships that are currently flagged in one of the host States. For those vessels, the ro-pax inspections are on occasion being combined with the flag State survey. In reality, the share of such vessels in this group can range between 10-50 percent and change from year to year due to flag changes. This inspection burden should be more explicitly attributed between the flag and port States and in any case decrease overall compared to status quo.

c.Regularity of inspections

It should be ensured that two annual ro-pax inspections are carried out with a certain time lag, i.e. 5-6 months. Therefore, those Member States where this is not the case (BE, BG, MT, PT and EL) and Norway, would need to adjust their inspection planning accordingly.

d.Content of survey during a regular service

The proposed clarification on the content of the 'in service' inspection may necessitate revisiting the inspection 'checklist' in those Member States where the requirements of current Annex IV are not checked in their entirety.

3. Envisaged support actions

3.1    At EU level

It is envisaged to make an extensive use of the existing Passenger Ship Safety Expert Group (PSS EG) in order to develop the implementation measures and to facilitate the transposition process. The corresponding expert groups dealing with the port State control inspections and the National Single Window implementation would be equally exploited.

The Passenger Ship Safety Expert Group would be enlarged to stakeholders who could participate as observers and prepare for the forthcoming legal changes.

A number of specific workshops and correspondence groups would be organised with the assistance of EMSA to further develop the issues of the more technical nature and to provide any technical assistance that may be needed during the transposition period.

On request of Member States, a number of visits could be carried out by EMSA to detect any transposition difficulties and to provide technical assistance where needed.

Existing training modules should be revised and continue to be provided with the assistance of EMSA.

3.2    At national level

Member States should ensure participation of their national experts at the Passenger Ship Safety Expert Group, workshops and trainings as relevant.

They should inform the Commission about any potential problems related to implementation as soon as they are identified.

Member States should share information related to implementation and monitoring indicators when requested by the Commission and EMSA.

Member States shall ensure the coordination between and raise awareness among the relevant competent authorities, economic actors such as shipyards, shipowners and operators, as well as passenger associations.

3.3    Timeline

(1)

   This Implementation Plan is provided for information purposes only. It does not legally bind the Commission on whether the identified actions will be pursued or on the form in which they will be pursued.