Toelichting bij COM(2023)272 - Wijziging van Richtlijn 2009/21/EG betreffende de naleving van vlaggenstaatverplichtingen - Hoofdinhoud
Dit is een beperkte versie
U kijkt naar een beperkte versie van dit dossier in de EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2023)272 - Wijziging van Richtlijn 2009/21/EG betreffende de naleving van vlaggenstaatverplichtingen. |
|---|---|
| bron | COM(2023)272  |
| datum | 01-06-2023 |
• Reasons for and objectives of the proposal
This proposal concerns a modification of Directive 2009/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on compliance with flag State requirements 1 .
Due to its history and international nature, maritime transport has developed a specific regulatory structure. Maritime safety and marine environmental protection are regulated under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), to which the Union is also a contracting party 2 . The Convention, also stipulating the responsibilities of a State as a flag State, is the basis for the formulation of detailed international rules and standards for the design, equipment, operation, management, maintenance, qualification and manning and disposal of ships. This is done at international level by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) 3 .
Directive 2009/21/EC (hereinafter the Directive) regulates the enforcement of rules applicable to flag State at the Union level. The responsibility for monitoring the compliance of ships with particular IMO conventions 4 lies with the State where the ship is registered and whose nationality the ship holds – the flag State. The Directive has the two-fold main objectives of enforcing safety rules and preventing pollution, as well as making sure that Member States comply with their obligations as flag States. The Directive therefore aims to ensure that ships flying EU Member States flags meet all safety 5 and pollution prevention requirements and are fit for service 6 . The Directive also aims to ensure that EU Member States have adequate resources to correctly, effectively and consistently discharge their obligations as flag States 7 . This is the first line of defence in maritime safety.
However, as flag States rules only apply to vessels that fly that flag and as some flags are not willing or able to enforce the applicable rules on their fleets, port State control provides for inspections of foreign ships when they are in ports. It is a system of inspection of foreign ships in ports of States other than the flag State by Port State Control (PSC) officers to verify that the competency of the master, officers and crew on board, the condition of a ship, and its equipment comply with the requirements of international conventions - and in the European Union, applicable EU law. This is the second line of defence.
Notwithstanding these two layers of prevention, accidents can still occur, and their causes should be investigated to provide for continuous improvement and to avoid similar accidents happening again. Directive 2009/18/EC 8 on maritime transport accident investigation is therefore the third line of defence.
The Directive incorporates rules aiming at a certain harmonisation for cases when a ship changes flag and when a ship (under a Member State flag) has been detained following a port State control inspection. It also sets the requirement for all EU Member States to undergo the IMO audit. The Directive also goes beyond what is required at international level by requiring Member States to have and maintain an internationally certified quality management system (QMS) for their flag-State related activities. Furthermore, it contains links to a performance measurement of the flagged fleet under the Paris Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on port State control.
It is for each EU Member State as flag State to take all necessary measures, including on board inspection and/or survey, to establish that the ship meets all international rules and regulations, as well as regional and/or national rules and regulations as the case may be, before issuing the relevant ship certificates, or have them issued on their behalf, as proof of the ship’s safety and that the ship is fit to proceed to sea. These surveys and certificates are therefore referred to as statutory 9 . It is for the shipowner to make the ship available for all surveys and inspections, and by carrying out all necessary upgrades and repairs, to maintain and have updated all statutory certificates which are a prerequisite for the ship to be able to sail 10 .
The international regime, as implemented also in the EU maritime safety acquis, allows a flag State to delegate the technical work to classification societies (non-governmental organisations that establish and maintain technical standards for the construction and operation of ships) to perform these statutory surveys required for verification that the ship is fit for purpose, on their behalf. When a classification society acts in this way it becomes a Recognised Organisation (RO) for that flag State. The flag State may also allow the RO to issue certificates on its behalf.
However, the responsibility incumbent on the flag State cannot be delegated. There is no obligation to use ROs; it is a choice that any flag State makes depending on the size and type of its fleet and on its own resources. Currently, almost all EU Member States as flag States have chosen to use ROs for various technical work. This is permitted and regulated under EU law 11 and the Commission has listed 12 the classification societies the Member States may choose from.
As the flag State’s responsibilities cannot be delegated away, there is a need, de jure and de facto, for flag States to continue to inspect its flagged vessels and monitor the statutory work performed on their behalf by ROs. Member States do so but to a varying degree and also have discretion on the scope of flag State inspections. In essence, there are two main types of flag State control on board flagged ships: i statutory survey leading to the issuance of statutory certification of the ship and, i flag State inspection, called supplementary inspections, not leading to certification of the ship. Flag State inspections are only to be carried out by the flag State. This is why, flag State inspections are a fundamental part of ensuring compliance and monitoring safety aspects. They require technical resources with adequate expertise, and form a core part of any maritime administration. The underlying international assumption is that all flag States have resources and meet the requirements incumbent on them. This to ensure that flag States worldwide correctly implement their international obligations and therefore provide for a level playing field. However, this is not always the case.
To counter this, IMO has, since the adoption of the Directive, made the “IMO Instruments Implementation code” (III-Code) and IMO audit mandatory 13 as of 2016 for all flag States in the world, including EU Member States. The III-Code and the IMO audit aims to ensure that States take all necessary steps to correctly implement and apply the Conventions and have the resources and powers needed as a flag State to assume their international obligations and ensure compliance of their flagged ships with these rules. The IMO audit scheme requires IMO parties to undergo an audit every 7 years. During these audits, it is verified that all IMO States with a flag register implement the III-Code and relevant conventions. However, the IMO has no enforcement powers. The EU Maritime safety legislation, within the maritime safety policy since 1992, implements the rules and regulation agreed bu the IMO flag States, including all EU Member States with a flagged fleet, to ensure enforceability and allow for compliance checks. In difference to the IMO, something happens, the recourse to infringement procedures, at EU level when a State as flag State is in breach of the rules.
The Directive consequently needs to be revised and incorporate the flag State relevant parts of the III-Code into EU legislation, to make it enforceable under the EU legal order.
In recognition of the importance of the Maritime Labour Convention, which falls outside the scope of the audits carried by IMO since it falls, under the remit and control of the International Labour Organisation the Directive has been complemented in 2013 by a separate Directive to provide for the enforcement by flag States of the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 (MLC, 2006) 14 .
Furthermore, since the Directive was adopted in 2009, there have been technological advancements in particular related to digitalisation such as electronic reporting of ship related certificates and electronic reporting following ship inspections. Some initiatives have been taken for the exchange of such information between EU Member States and with relevant systems, including the Union Maritime Information and Exchange System 15 hosted in the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA), both as regards sharing e-reports following inspections of roll-on, roll-off passenger ships in regular service 16 , and as regards some details of statutory certificates when issued by an RO. These should be captured and further built upon in the flag State directive for all surveys, inspections and audits on flagged ships. This is also where efficiency gains can be made and reduction of administrative burden, since sharing of such information within one system, hosted in EMSA, allows for better preparation and targeting of which ship to inspect and more focus during inspections, making them more effective. This is also where the synergies with the port State control Directive lays.
The Directive was subject to an ex-post evaluation and Maritime Transport Fitness Check (alongside other pieces of EU legislation), which concluded in 2018. The Directive has also been subject to continuous monitoring by the Commission and over this time a certain number of issues have been identified as being problematic. These concern i the legal uncertainty on the implementation of new international rules at EU level and i the lack of harmonised approach to inspections, control, monitoring and information sharing of flagged fleet. The evaluation and the fitness check also underscored that national authorities should have the necessary resources and powers to assume their international obligations as flag States and ensure compliance of their flagged ships.
In the light of this, a proposal to amend Directive 2009/21/EC has been prepared. The specific objectives of its revision are:
–The update and alignment of the Directive with the international rules to provide better consistency and legal clarity, in particular as regards the III-Code.
–Ensuring adequate inspections of flagged ships and monitoring oversight of ROs working on behalf of the flag State. This includes ensuring more harmonised inspection levels and consistent oversight of ROs involving all Member States in an EU-wide oversight scheme;
–Ensure a higher uptake of digital solutions. In particular, ensuring the reporting, use and sharing of electronic certificates, interoperable with EMSA hosted databases, moving away from cumbersome paper-based certification systems towards higher efficiency for both administrations and ships;
–Ensure a harmonised approach in the understanding, reporting and measuring of the performance of flag States fleets and duties. This involves enhanced cooperation between relevant national authorities in a specific forum, as well as capacity building and flag State training. Furthermore, an update and modernisation of the performance measurement scheme is necessary for more effective continuous improvement.
• Consistency with existing policy provisions in the policy area
The proposal is fully consistent with the Directives 2009/16/EC 17 on port State control and Directive 2009/18/EC 18 on accident investigation. The three Directives - which are all being amended at the same time - have to be coherent with each other and any proposed change to one has to take the other two Directives and the broader international regulatory environment into account.
• Consistency with other Union policies
The proposal forms part of the Commission's REFIT programme and delivers on its Better Regulation agenda by ensuring that the existing legislation is simple and clear, does not create unnecessary burden and keeps pace with evolving political, societal and technological developments, in particular digitalisation. Simplification via the use of e-certificates and e-flag State reporting can be made reducing the administrative burden. Sharing of such information within one system, hosted in EMSA, also allows for better preparation and targeting of which ship to inspect and more focus during inspections, making them more efficient. That may reduce the time spent on board and consequently the time the ship is spending not sailing (improved turn-around time) to the benefit of quality operators. This proposal for an amendment as well as those for the other maritime safety Directives are also part of and have significant interaction with the larger maritime safety acquis which includes elements such as the EU legislation relating to Recognised Organisations 19 , the EU vessel traffic monitoring and information system (SafeSeaNet) 20 , the EMSA founding Regulation 21 and, the Roll-on Roll-off Passenger ship Directive 22 .
Inhoudsopgave
- 2. LEGAL BASIS, SUBSIDIARITY AND PROPORTIONALITY
- 3. RESULTS OF EX-POST EVALUATIONS, STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS AND IMPACT ASSESSMENTS
- 4. BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS
- 5. OTHER ELEMENTS
- Article 1 of the draft amending Directive forms its main part and contains amendments to numerous provisions of Directive 2009/21/EC.
- Conditions for allowing a ship to sail
- Actions in relation to or following monitoring of flagged ships
- Electronic information and inspection database
- Monitoring of compliance and performance
- Quality Management and performance of flag States
- Cooperation and exchange of information
- Committee Procedure
- Delegated acts
- Exercise of the delegation
- Annexes
• Legal basis
The legal basis of the Amending Directive is Article 100 i TFEU, providing for measures to improve transport safety and for specific provisions for sea transport.
• Subsidiarity (for non-exclusive competence)
As the international instruments in the field of flag State compliance in the maritime transport sector are an exclusive Union competence pursuant to Article 3 i TFEU, the subsidiarity principle does not apply, either to those instruments or to Union rules implementing those agreements.
• Proportionality
The proposal has been prepared in view of the latest developments at the international level and the results of the REFIT exercises previously mentioned. The Commission has also carried out an impact assessment to identify, assess and evaluate alternative measures to achieve the same objectives.
The objective of the proposed amendment is to improve maritime safety by having an up-to-date, coherent and harmonised system of flag State compliance and monitoring, including via flag State inspections and RO oversight across the EU. This has by large already been agreed to by the Member States when adopting 23 the mandatory III-Code and IMO audit that came into effect in 2016. The proposed measure should further improve the safety and environmental performance of EU Member State flagged vessels and rebalance responsibilities towards the flag States, possibly reducing the burden on port States control.
The move towards digitalisation and the use of e-certificates will create costs but these will be limited and will be offset by the positive safety and efficiency benefits they can yield.
• Choice of the instrument
As only several amendments need to be done with respect to Directive 2009/21/EC, an amending Directive is the most appropriate legal instrument.
• Ex-post evaluations/fitness checks of existing legislation
The 2018 ex-post evaluation 24 and the Maritime Transport Fitness Check 25 concluded that the added value of EU action lies in the harmonised implementation and enforcement of international rules into and under EU legislation, as well as requiring and encouraging cooperation among Member States. The evaluation highlighted the contribution of the flag State Directive in providing for a high and uniform level of safety and a level playing field between Member States, which in turns has contributed to achieving a safe, secure and sustainable maritime transport.
In addition, the Commission has actively followed-up on cases where the performance of Member States as flag States fell below the requirements established under international and EU law. In those cases, the Commission requested the concerned Member States to carry out a detailed root-cause analysis of the problems and to adopt an action plan to correct them. This encouraged many flag States to pay more attention to the quality of their fleet.
However, the fitness check highlighted the need for a broader rebalancing of EU maritime safety policy. This means above all reinforcing the EU layer for the “first line of defence”, compliance and preventive action which befalls on flag States. The evaluation concluded that current policies focus on Member States as port and coastal States, and less so on flag States. The Fitness Check concluded that what is missing within the FSD are the relevant flag State related parts of the mandatory III-Code. At the same time the importance of maintaining the IMO audit was highlighted. At the same time, the fitness check identified several areas where flag State compliance could be improved.
• Stakeholder consultations
The main consultation activities included:
–Four scoping interviews were conducted between March and April 2021 with EU level representatives of key stakeholders, particularly to support and refine the overall problem definition and possible policy options.
–Twenty three targeted interviews were carried out by the consultant in charge of the external support study to the Impact Assessment between April and September 2021, with the following stakeholder categories: national authorities (19), industry representatives i, experts i.
–A targeted survey was organised by the consultant in charge of the external support study to the Impact Assessment, running between December 2021 and February 2022, addressing both national administrations and industry stakeholders categories. An additional targeted request for data and statistics, especially as regards flag State inspectors and number of inspections was carried out in September 2022.
–A dedicated Workshop took place on 21 October 2021 with Flag State administrations (17) and representatives of the sector (8) – ship owners, classification societies, ports organisations, workers’ representatives, which covered possible changes in measuring flag State performance (the paradigm shift in KPIs from fleet to governance).
–A final workshop was organised on 20 January 2022. The event was divided into two sessions with different stakeholder groups – one with flag State authorities in the EU Member States (23 Member States represented) and one with maritime industry stakeholders. The workshop focused specifically on gathering views on the final version of policy measures, as well as on the assessment of the various impacts.Additional consultation activities organised by DG MOVE and the consultant in charge of the external support study to the Impact Assessment in order to consult the Member States and key stakeholders by providing their views on the different policy measures but also to validate the emerging and final results of the support study to the Impact Assessment in terms of the quantification of the impacts. These activates took place in the context of an informal meeting of the EU/EEA Maritime Transport Directors (30 November 2021) and meetings of the EU Committee on Safe Seas and the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (17 May 2021, 11 November 2021 and 31 May 2022). All confirmed the need to align with IMO rules (III-Code).
–Bilateral discussions with both Member States and Industry in the autumn 2022 (August-October), at their request. They expressed overall support, mostly focussing on the digitalisation aspects and the need to include this in the preferred policy choice; some raised a concern regarding the approach to shift statutory surveys back to flag States (in terms of safety impact).
–The information collected from stakeholders was key in allowing the Commission to refine the design of the policy options as well as to assess their economic, social and environmental impacts, compare them and determine which policy option is likely to maximize the benefits/costs ratio for the society and fully contribute to achieving a measured but more effective and efficient flag State control ensuring compliance. The consultations also supported the Commission in gauging how to consider a measured approach that would maximize safety but minimize the risk of putting EU Member States flags at a competitive disadvantage that would risk flagging out from EU Member States flags to third country flags. Findings from those processes complemented the desk research carried out in the context of the external support study.
- All flag State administrations and industry stakeholders are in favour of a clear, coherent and aligned legal framework that incorporates the international rules: the III-Code and IMO audit. The preferred policy option is supported by national administrations as it ensures a high degree of internal and external coherence. This option is considered measured and proportional with regards to the great variety in size and type of fleet in the EU Member States. The flag State administrations are supportive of the use of digitalisation e.g. e-flag State inspection reports and electronic certificates and for sharing those with other EU Member States and with port State control. Industry stakeholders consider such digitalisation an advantage. EU Member States fully support further harmonisation of inspections and oversight of ROs as well as capacity building and training. The Member States with the biggest fleets (in terms of number of ships) also support the measured approach in the preferred policy option over the other as it is considered less disruptive and ensures the competitiveness of the EU Member States flagged fleet and therefore its reliance and resilience.
• Collection and use of expertise
This review builds primarily on the data collected during the 2018 ex-post evaluation and Maritime Transport Fitness Check exercises previously referred to.
In addition to the data collected and consultation carried out in this framework, the preparation of this proposal necessitated input from technical and legal experts regarding the concrete formulation of technical definitions and clear legal drafting. This expertise was gathered within the Commission and the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA). It is reported on in the Staff Working Document accompanying the proposal.
• Impact assessment
The proposal is based on the results of an impact assessment which was informed by a support study carried out by an external consultant having specific knowledge in this area.
The impact assessment examined four policy options for revising the Directive, based on the following guiding principles:
(1)The need for incorporation of and alignment to the international rules and procedures developed after the adoption of the Directive in 2009 and agreed upon by EU Member States.
(2)Ensuring cooperation, continuous improvement and performance by reflecting on the lessons learnt during the implementation of the Directive.
(3)Increasing the digitalisation to allow for enhanced and focussed flag State inspections and RO monitoring. The Directive should also facilitate the use of electronic certificates;
(4)Ensuring an efficient and harmonised approach to capacity building, inspections and monitoring of flagged fleet, with the aim to ensure technical and operational capability in EU flag administrations to perform the obligations incumbent upon them.
All options propose solutions to the identified problems, but vary in terms of the level and ambition of harmonization and control for ensuring compliance, while some discretion is left to the Member State regarding inspection and monitoring of the flagged fleet. In all policy options amendments to the Directive are foreseen by incorporating the now mandatory relevant flag State parts of the III-Code and maintaining the IMO Audit mandatory.
Option 1, additionally, would propose measures that prevent the use of non-exclusive technical staff from doing any type of work for the flag State administrations. Administrations would need to get resources to recruit, employ and retain relevant technical staff to undertake flag State inspections and RO monitoring.
Option 2 would not prohibit the use of non-exclusive technical staff but would ‘ring-fence’ when and for what type of surveys and under exceptional circumstances such non-exclusive personnel could be allowed. This option introduces specific requirements regarding inspections, commensurate with the size and type of fleet to ensure that all EU flag administrations retain core technical staff within the administration. A flag State expert group would be established. Requirements regarding digitalisation would be introduced on the exchange of ship related information such as electronic flag State inspection reports and e-certificates. Finally, it would also address the issue of common capacity building and harmonised training (post-qualification) for flag State inspectors.
Option 3 would also prevent the use of non-exhaustive technical staff and additionally require the Member States flag administrations to have the capacity to do the statutory work and issue the statutory certificates related to the International Safety Management Code. Any subsequent audits could then be performed by ROs. Finally, Option 4 would also require Member States flags to have the capacity to do the statutory survey work and issue the related statutory certificates concerning ‘high-risk’ ships, prior to allowing them to operate under a Member State flag. It would therefore also prohibit the use of non-exclusive technical staff.
Any measures at EU level must be balanced with the possible impact on the EU Member State flagged fleet and therefore strategic resilience and impacts on trade to/from the EU as a whole (avoiding flagging out to non-EU flags). The impact assessment concluded that the preferred policy option is option 2.
The impact assessment was submitted to the Regulatory Scrutiny Board for approval in January 2023. The Board issued a positive opinion with reservations. These comments were addressed in the Staff Working Document which accompanies this legislative proposal.
• Regulatory fitness and simplification
The initiative has a REFIT dimension in terms of alignment and simplification of safety legislation, and of assisting Member State authorities to better fulfil their inspection and reporting obligations.
In addition, the preferred policy option includes elements of simplification, as it will clarify the issuing, use and exchange of electronic documents related - for instance – to flag State inspections carried out and e-certificates related to the ship. This will allow a more efficient preparation and focus of flag State inspections (as well as port State control inspections) and enhanced monitoring of the ship and any work carried out on behalf of the flag State. It supports the control of compliance of the ships under flag at all times. The provision by EMSA of assistance to national flag State authorities with capacity building and training on how to carry out flag State inspections, and the provision of a dedicated inspection database to report inspections will increase the harmonization and standardisation across the EU.
• Fundamental rights
The proposal has no consequences for the protection of fundamental rights.
The proposal has net present costs for the Union Budget of EUR 7 to 8.1 million over the period 2025-2050. The budget impact of the proposal is described in more detail in the Legislative Financial Statement annexed to this proposal for information. The budget impact of the proposal is already included in the Commission’s Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Maritime Safety Agency and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1406/2002.
The budget impact beyond the current MFF is an indicative overview, without prejudice to the future MFF Agreement.
• Implementation plans and monitoring, evaluation and reporting arrangements
The proposal is accompanied by an implementation plan that lists the actions needed to implement the measures and identifies the main technical, legal and time-related implementation challenges.
Adequate monitoring and reporting arrangements have been identified. EMSA will play an important role in this process, as the Agency is in charge of the development and operation of electronic data systems for maritime transport, in particular the inspection reporting database.
The implementation will be monitored by the Commission, with the assistance of EMSA. EMSA also carries out cycles of visits to Member States to verify operations on the ground as part of EMSA’s support role to the Commission 26 . Member States will have to continue have a quality management system (QMS) to certify that their organisation, policies, processes, resources and documentation are appropriate to fulfil their responsibilities. This will have to be certified and subsequently subject to periodic audit. Member States will have to share with Commission and/or EMSA the results of the audits carried out by the IMO and accredited body such that the national flag State authorities can retain their QMS certification. The revised performance scheme, together with the inspection reports and e-certificates uploaded to the database, will allow purposeful monitoring.
• Explanatory documents (for directives)
Explanatory documents are not required as the proposal aims to simplify and clarify the existing regime.
• Detailed explanation of the specific provisions of the proposal
Article 1 of the draft amending Directive forms its main part and contains amendments to numerous provisions of Directive 2009/21/EC.
Subject-matter, scope and definition
In point 1, Article 3 is amended to update some references to IMO instruments in the existing definitions and to include further definitions relevant for the Directive, notably the III-Code.
In Point 2, Article 4 is amended to introduce the use of the database for verification of the condition of the ship (transferring in, as the case may be) before the ship is allowed to operate.
Point 3 inserts Articles 4a – 4c.
New Article 4a requires the Member State as flag State to adhere to the III-Code and the requirement to carry out supplementary flag State inspections to ensure the safety of ships flying the flag of a Member State.
New Article 4b, introduces the requirement on administrations to have the appropriate resources, commensurate with the size and type of fleet (ships registered under the flag) to meet the supplementary inspection obligation and the EU RO oversight and monitoring requirements. The precise details of such resources for carrying out inspections of flagged fleet and RO monitoring will be laid down via an implementing measure.
New Article 4c is laying down responsibilities and common capacity building of the flag State personnel. This includes the continuous development of training schemes and material reflecting updates in the international IMO Conventions as well as possible new requirements following on from environmental considerations especially as regards new technologies (e.g. propulsion, new types of fuel etc).
In Point 4, Article 5 is amended to require the Member States as flag States to use the Union Maritime Information Exchange System (SafeSeaNet) to control and monitor ships under their flag and check e.g. whether they are being detained under port State control. This amendment also addresses the lack of flexibility of the flag State regime in cases of crisis or unexpected events, such as the COVID-19 pandemic.
In Point 5, Article 6 is amended to introduce e-documents that are to be recorded, kept, reported and shared via a national e-certification registry compatible with the inspections database in the new Article 6a. E-documents concern among others e-inspection reports and e-certificates.
Pont 6 introduces a new Article 6a and the establishment of the inspection database to be hosted by the Commission. It is based on the inspection database already in operation for PSC and passenger ship inspection reporting and will use the same technical features. As regards electronic transmissions of e-certificates, these will be using the same technical solutions as established by the PSC Directive, based on the technical solution already in operation for ROs to meet the requirements for sharing e-certificates, as stipulated in the EU RO legislation.
The approach is one of building on the existing systems, creating further synergies, avoiding duplication and re-using information as far as possible, relying on one interoperable system.
In point 7, Article 7 is amended to clarify what information shall be published following an IMO Audit. It also introduces the requirement that the Member State as auditee shall allow for the possibility of the Commission, assisted by EMSA, to observe such IMO audits. The aim is to ensure transparency and facilitate synergies between IMO Audits and EMSA visits.
In Point 8, Article 8 is amended and the scope and coverage of the Quality Management System is clarified to cover all registries, whether it is the traditional (so-called first registers), international or overseas or similar (called second registers) under the authority of the flag State and flying the flag of that State as well as coverage of all flag State-related activities.
It further introduces the conditions for control if the flag State is, or will be, using non-exclusive inspectors, and introduces the requirement for all involved to ensure the absence of conflict of interest.
Finally, the current performance measurement should be revised and modernised, via an implementing act, taking into account a number of further criteria as well as similar performance scheme for ROs. The requirements to be applied by the Member States for their own assessment of performance as well as the requirement for the Commission to make overall results publicly available is introduced.
In point 9, Article 9 is deleted.
Point 10 introduces Articles 9a and 9b.
New Article 9 and establishes a high level group on flag State matters, composed of Member States’ Flag State authorities and experts for discussing all flag State related and pertinent issues.
New Article 9b establishes a dynamic electronic reporting tool for gathering information and statistics.
In point 11, article 10 is updated with the most recent text regarding committee procedures for implementing acts.
Point 12 provides that the Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts to update the Annex and that any updates to are subject to the standard non-regression clause. This means that if there are changes at the international level, the standards in the EU instrument are at least maintained at the current level.
Point 13 sets out the standard text for the exercise of delegation.
Point 14 sets out one new Annex with the flag State parts 1 and 2 of Resolution A.1070(28) IMO Instruments Implementation Code (III CODE).