Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL amending Council Directive 95/21/EC concerning the enforcement, in respect of shipping using Community ports and sailing in the waters under the jurisdiction of the Member States, of international standards for ship safety, pollution prevention and shipboard living and working conditions (port State control)

LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL I

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

The wreck of the Erika focused attention on several weaknesses in the current system of port State control. None of the many inspections of the Erika over the last few years in the framework of port State control, by the classification societies or by the oil companies' private inspection systems had detected the shortcomings judged to be at the origin of this accident.

Since Directive 95/21/EC was adopted, substantial efforts have been made - particularly under the auspices of the Paris Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control - to improve the uniformity and efficiency of inspection procedures. However, important disparities still remain within the Community and ships that pose a high risk to the environment are not inspected with sufficient rigour when they call at European ports.

The reasons that have led the Commission to propose amending the Directive include the following:

- several Member States are still failing to comply with the 25% threshold laid down in the Directive for inspections of individual ships;

- the target factor system developed in the framework of the Paris MOU and made mandatory by the Directive is not being applied in a satisfactory manner;

- examination of the reports on the inspections carried out before the sinking of the Erika seem to show that the expanded inspections conducted in application of the Directive were not always performed with the necessary rigour. Furthermore, it has not been possible from this examination to verify the extent to which the guidelines in Annex V were followed and what checks were made.

The Commission therefore proposes a number of measures designed to improve and strengthen the inspection regime laid down in the Port State Control Directive.

The following amendments are proposed:

1. Banning manifestly sub-standard ships from European waters

The Commission considers it unacceptable that certain ships with a history of posing a manifest danger to maritime safety and the marine environment continue to sail in Community waters. The general public can only interpret this as demonstrating the ineffectiveness of the on-board inspection of ships performed by the port States.

It considers that a clear and strong message must be sent to the ships' operators and to all those - in particular the flag States or the classification societies - who, by their behaviour or inaction, contribute to the considerable risks to safety and the marine environment.

The Commission therefore proposes banning such ships from the European Union. This concerns ships in the risk categories referred to in Article 7 and Annex V to the Directive. [1] Ships of this category that are old (more than 15 years), that may be considered as "past offenders" (detained more than twice over the last two years), and that fly the flag of a State on the "black list" of detentions established by the Paris MOU should no longer be admitted to Community ports.

[1] Annex V to the Directive provides for a system of expanded inspection for certain categories of ship (oil tankers, gas and chemical tankers and bulk carriers above a certain age, and passenger ships).

The Commission has drawn up guidelines for the application of this measure, setting out the procedures to be followed in imposing a ban and also providing the possibility to lift the ban if it can be shown that the ship is no longer a safety or environmental hazard. The Commission will publish the list of banned ships every six months.

2. Obligation to inspect ships posing a high risk to maritime safety and the marine environment

Directive 95/21/EC, as it stands, does not stipulate an obligation to inspect a ship. Whatever the potential hazard posed by a ship, the decision to inspect is always initially based on a prior selection made by a port State inspector on the basis of his professional judgement. The target factor introduced by an amendment to the Directive on 19 June 1998 is an important step towards harmonising the selection criteria. Nevertheless, the Commission considers that the inspector's margin of discretion in selecting the ships to be inspected should in certain cases be considerably reduced in the interests of achieving truly uniform and efficient practices.

The Commission therefore proposes making inspection obligatory in the following cases:

(a) -If the target factor exceeds a certain limit

The targeting system established by the Directive and the Paris MOU is not working entirely satisfactorily. Ships with the highest target factor are not in practice systematically assigned the highest priority.

The Commission proposes including in Article 5 a specific obligation to inspect systematically any ships whose target factor exceeds 50, according to the procedure laid down in the Paris MOU, each time they call at a port of the European Union. The figure of 50 corresponds to ships posing a high risk. However, according to the estimates made in the context of the Paris MOU based on the number of ships inspected in 1999, the percentage of ships affected is likely to be less than 2.5% of the vessels recorded in the Sirenac database of the Paris MOU. [2]

[2] Sirenac, operated by the Centre Administratif des Affaires Maritimes in Saint-Malo (France), is a database of information relating to inspections carried out by the member countries of the Paris MOU.

(b) - If the ships concerned are classed in a category justifying expanded inspection

The provisions of the Directive relating to the expanded inspection regime for "high risk" ships gives inspectors too wide a margin of discretion to decide which ships to inspect and what is to be included in the inspection. Furthermore, recent events have shown that the structural defects affecting certain types of ships and oil tankers in particular may lead to accidents with dramatic consequences for the environment. Without questioning the basic responsibility of the classification societies to detect such faults, it is important that the port State authorities equip themselves with the means to assess the satisfactory structural condition of a ship (particularly as regards corrosion of the tanks).

The Commission therefore proposes changing the expanded inspection regime for ships referred to in Article 7 and in Annex V to the Directive as follows:

- Article 7 is amended to establish a clear obligation to inspect the ships in question. Consequently, whenever one of these ships calls at a port of the European Union after a period of 12 months, it must without exemption be subjected to an expanded inspection. The existing rule, according to which the ship may in the intervening period be subject to a normal inspection or a more detailed inspection, is maintained. However, the 25% threshold stipulated in Annex V is applicable to expanded inspections carried out in the framework of Article 7 (and to any other inspections provided for by the Directive).

- The optional guidelines in the Directive are made mandatory: the inspection must at least cover the general or specific checks for the categories of ship concerned. However, the proposal allows the possibility of not carrying out certain checks if they are not practically feasible (e.g. inspection of the tanks on a loaded oil tanker) or if they are likely to create particular hazards (e.g. explosion) for the ship, its crew or the port.

- With regard to oil tankers (item 2 of the current Annex V-B), structural matters are addressed only in the form of a check of the survey report. The Commission believes it is essential that the structural inspection should encompass more than a check of the documents on board and be based on a direct, visual examination by the inspector of the structural condition of the ship. However, as cargo tanks are not normally accessible during a port call, the inspector must carry out a visual examination of at least one of the ballast tanks in order to gain a general impression of its possible degree of corrosion. If the ship does not have segregated ballast tanks, the inspector should attempt to carry out such an assessment on the basis of any tank or empty space normally accessible.

- An advance notification obligation is introduced (new section B of Annex V) to facilitate the subsequent conduct of the inspection once the ship enters port. In principle, an expanded inspection must be prepared in advance. The shipowner or ship's master will be obliged to communicate certain operational information (e.g. duration of the call, state of the ballast and cargo tanks, operations planned during the call, etc.) directly to the inspector 48 hours before arrival at the port (or from the port of departure).

- Specifically with regard to oil tankers, the age from which expanded inspections have to be carried out will be reduced to 15 years (currently 20 or 25 years depending on the type of tanker in accordance with the progressive phase-out dates laid down in Regulation 13G of the MARPOL Convention). The vessels concerned are single hull tankers, whether or not they have segregated ballast tanks.

3. Follow-up to the result of inspections

The follow-up of inspections between ports is not ideal. Above all, it is extremely difficult to ascertain, from the information in the Sirenac system, which parts of the ship inspected were checked in the previous port or ports. As a result, there is a risk that the inspection authority in a given port will inspect again the parts of the ship that have already been checked in the previous port. In order to avoid the possibility of such duplications and to optimise the overall cost-effectiveness ratio of the port State control system, the Commission proposes making it obligatory to state which parts of the ship have been inspected in the inspection report (a copy of which is kept on board and must be examined by the inspector of the following inspection port).

4. Informing the flag State and the classification societies

Under Directive 95/21/EC as it stands, the flag State and the classification societies are informed only of the detention of a ship by the port State inspection authorities. However, information on completion of each inspection would be extremely useful in permitting more efficient monitoring of the evolution (and possible deterioration) of the condition of a ship by the administration of the flag State, or by the classification society acting on its behalf. Consequently, the Commission proposes amending Article 8 of the Directive to stipulate the transmission of a copy of the inspection report to the flag State and to the classification society concerned.

5. Verification of the financial guarantee covering pollution risk

As the Erika accident has shown, oil tankers can cause considerable damage in the event of an oil spill, so that appropriate cover of these risks is extremely important. The 1969 International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, and the 1992 Protocol relating thereto, stipulates that the owner of a ship registered in a State party to the Convention and carrying more than 2 000 tonnes of oil in bulk must take out an insurance or other financial guarantee to cover its liability for pollution damage. The Commission proposes adding these documents to the list of certificates in Annex II to the Directive to be verified by the inspectors. Their absence should be taken as justifying a more detailed inspection of the ship and constitutes a ground for detention.

6. Transparency of information on the ships inspected or detained in accordance with the Directive

The aim of Article 15 is to publish certain information on the ships detained in the ports of the European Union and in this way to punish operators who bear part of the responsibility for failure to comply with safety standards. The existing Directive provides for publishing the name of the ship's operator and the classification society. However, other players are implicated in the phenomenon of sub-standard shipping, in particular the cargo owners deciding to charter a particular ship: shipowners of "convenience" exist because there are charterers who care little about the quality of the ships they charter.

The other objective is to give those who take the decisions (charterers, insurers, etc.) and the European public a fuller and more user-friendly picture of the inspections carried out in Community ports. To this end, it is important that additional information on more detailed inspections should be made available both by the port State authorities (expanded inspections within the meaning of Article 7) and by the classification societies (special surveys). There is also a need for information to be made available regarding the follow-up by the port State authorities or the classification societies to a detention ordered under the Directive.

Consequently, publication of the following information is proposed:

- the identity of the charterer and the type of charter (voyage or time charter). This obligation will concern only ships carrying bulk liquid or solid cargo. In the case of packaged goods, identification of the many lots concerned would pose major practical problems;

- information on the most recent expanded inspection performed in the context of port State control, and the most recent "special survey" carried out by a classification society;

- list of measures taken following a detention (deadlines set for repairs, etc.), whether by the port authorities or by the classification societies.

7. Monitoring application of the Directive and assessing the performance of Member States

Article 17 of Directive 95/21/EC stipulates that Member States must provide certain information on the number of inspectors allocated to port State control and the number of individual ships entering their ports in a representative calendar year.

This information enables the Commission to verify the compliance with the 25% threshold for inspections laid down in Article 5(1), but is not enough to enable it to carry out a detailed examination of the proper application of the Directive's provisions, which is its duty under the Treaty, and to initiate, where necessary, infringement proceedings against defaulting Member States. Consequently, possible lax practices in certain Community ports are not detected and the risks of varying safety standards and distortion of competition between ports persist.

The Commission therefore proposes increasing the frequency for transmission of this data (annually rather than every three years as at present) and adding new items to the list of information to be transmitted to the Commission. A new Annex to the Directive is added, requiring Member States to provide detailed information to the Commission on the movements of ships in ports, classified according to various criteria (age, flag, size, etc.).

2000/0065 (COD)

Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL amending Council Directive 95/21/EC concerning the enforcement, in respect of shipping using Community ports and sailing in the waters under the jurisdiction of the Member States, of international standards for ship safety, pollution prevention and shipboard living and working conditions (port State control)

(Text with EEA relevance)

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 80(2) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission, [3]

[3] OJ C , , p. .

Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee, [4]

[4] OJ C , , p. .

Having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions, [5]

[5] OJ C , , p. .

Acting in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 251 of the Treaty, [6]

[6] OJ C , , p. .

Whereas:

(1) Directive 95/21/EC establishes a system of port State control of shipping in the European Community based on uniform inspection and detention procedures.

(2) It is necessary to take account of the changes that have been made to the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) conventions, protocols, codes and resolutions and of developments in the framework of the Paris Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).

(3) Some ships pose a manifest risk to maritime safety and the marine environment because of their age, flag and history. They should therefore be refused access to Community ports, unless it can be demonstrated that they can be operated safely in Community waters. Guidelines must be established setting out the procedures applicable in the event of imposition of an access ban and of the lifting of such a ban. The list of ships refused access to Community ports must be published and displayed by the Sirenac information system.

(4) Ships with a high target factor present a particularly serious accident or pollution risk, justifying the need to inspect them at every Community port of call.

(5) The categories of ships listed in Annex V also present a major accident or pollution hazard when they reach a certain age. The broad discretionary power of the inspection authority as to whether to select such ships for expanded inspection prevents the achievement of uniform practices within the Community. It is therefore necessary to make inspection of these ships mandatory.

(6) The content of the expanded inspections for which guidelines have been laid down in Annex V, section B is likely to vary considerably at the discretion of the inspection authority. These guidelines must therefore be made mandatory. However, there must be provision for making an exception when the conduct of an inspection of such ships, in particular in view of the state of the ships' cargo tanks or of operational constraints relating to loading or unloading activities, is impossible or would involve excessive risks for the safety of the ship and its crew and for the safety of the port area.

(7) Structural defects in a ship are likely to increase the risk of an accident at sea. In the case of a ship carrying a bulk cargo of oil, such accidents can have disastrous consequences for the environment. The inspection authority should carry out a visual examination of the accessible parts of the ship in order to detect any serious corrosion and take whatever follow-up action may be necessary, in particular vis-à-vis the classification societies responsible for the structural quality of ships.

(8) Expanded inspection based on mandatory verification of certain aspects of the ship takes a considerable amount of time and organisation. The task of preparing the inspection should be facilitated, which in turn will improve its effectiveness. To this end, the master or operator of any ship entering a Community port must notify certain information of an operational nature.

(9) Given the risks of major pollution caused by oil tankers and in view of the fact that the great majority of deficiencies leading to detention concern ships older than 15 years, the expanded inspection regime should be applied to oil tankers from the age of fifteen.

(10) The growing importance of port State control in the battle against sub-standard practices is resulting in an overall increase in inspectors' tasks. A particular effort should therefore be made to avoid redundant inspections and to improve the information available to inspectors on the content of inspections performed in previous ports. Consequently, the inspection report produced by the inspector on completion of an inspection, a more detailed inspection or an expanded inspection must also state which parts of the ship have already been inspected. The inspector at the following port of call will thus be able to take this information into account and, where appropriate, decide to refrain from inspecting a part of the ship if no deficiency was detected during the previous inspection.

(11) The administration of the flag State of a ship inspected or the classification society concerned must be informed of the result of inspection in order to ensure more effective monitoring of the development and, where appropriate, the deterioration in the state of the ship in order to take the necessary remedial action while there is still time.

(12) Accidental pollution by oil is likely to cause considerable damage to the environment and the economy of the region concerned. It is therefore necessary to verify whether oil tankers calling at European Union ports have appropriate cover for such risks. Whenever an oil tanker carrying more than 2 000 tonnes of oil in bulk is inspected, the inspector must check the presence on board of an insurance or other financial guarantee covering pollution damage, in conformity with the 1969 International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, as amended by its 1992 Protocol.

(13) The transparency of information relating to ships inspected and detained is a key element of any policy designed to deter the use of ships that fall short of the safety standards. It is necessary in this context to include the identity of the ship's charterer in the list of information published. The public must also be given fuller and clearer information on the inspections and detentions carried out in European Union ports. This concerns in particular information on the more extensive inspections performed on board ships, both by the port State authorities and by the classification societies, and an explanation of the measures taken by the port State authorities or the classification societies concerned following a detention order under the Directive.

(14) The detection of cases where the Directive has not been properly applied or of lax practices in certain Community ports is essential in order to avoid the risk of varying levels of safety and distortion of competition between ports and regions of the European Union. The Commission must therefore have more detailed information, particularly on the movements of ships in ports, in order to be able to carry out a detailed examination of the conditions under which the Directive is being applied. Such information must be provided to the Commission on an annual basis to enable it to intervene more rapidly whenever anomalies are found in the application of the Directive.

(15) The provisions of Directive 95/21/EC concerning the committee procedure must be amended to take account of Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission. [7]

[7] OJ L 184, 17.07.1999, p. 23.

(16) As the measures required to implement this Directive are measures of general scope within the meaning of Article 2 of Council Decision 1999/468/EC, they should be adopted according to the regulatory procedure laid down in Article 5 of that Decision,

HAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:

Article 1

Council Directive 95/21/EC is hereby amended as follows:

1) The title is replaced by the following:

"Directive 95/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 June 1995 on port State control of shipping".

2) Article 2 is amended as follows:

a) point 1 is amended as follows:

(i) the following subparagraph is added:

« - the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, 1969, and the 1992 Protocol relating thereto."

(ii) the date 1 July 1999 is replaced by the date 1 July 2000;

b) in point 2, the date 1 July 1999 is replaced by the date 1 July 2000.

3) Article 5 is amended as follows:

a) paragraph (1) is replaced by the following:

"1. The total number of inspections of the ships referred to in Article 5(2), Article 6 and Article 7 to be carried out annually by the competent authority of each Member State shall correspond to at least 25% of the number of individual ships which entered its ports during the past calendar year.";

b) paragraph (2) is replaced by the following:

"2. The competent authority shall ensure that an inspection in accordance with Article 6 is carried out on any ship not subject to an expanded inspection with a target factor greater than 50 in the Sirenac information system. In selecting other ships for inspection, the competent authorities shall determine the order of priority as follows:

- absolute priority shall be given to the ships listed in Annex I, Part I, irrespective of their target factor;

- the ships listed in Annex I, Part II shall be selected in decreasing order, depending on the order of priority resulting from the value of their target factor."

4) Article 7 is replaced by the following:

"Article 7

Mandatory expanded inspection of certain ships

1. Member States shall ensure that the ships classed in one of the categories of Annex V, section A are subject to an expanded inspection in the first port visited after a period of twelve months since the last expanded inspection carried out in a port of a Member State. However, these ships may be subject to the inspection provided for in Article 6(1) and (2) in the period between two expanded inspections.

2. The operator or the master of a ship referred to in the preceding paragraph shall communicate all the information listed in Annex V, section B, to the competent authority of the Member State concerned at least 2 working days before the expected time of arrival in a port of a Member State, or before leaving the port of departure if the voyage is expected to take fewer than 2 working days.

Any ship failing to communicate the above information to the competent authority concerned shall be subject to an inspection in conformity with Article 6 on arrival at its port of destination.

3. Annex V, section C shall contain mandatory guidelines on expanded inspection."

5) The following Article 7a is inserted:

"Article 7a

Access refusal measures concerning certain ships subject to expanded inspection

1. Member States shall ensure that ships older than 15 years classed in one of the categories of Annex V, section A are refused access to all Community ports, except in the situations described in Article 11(6), if these ships:

- have been detained more than twice in the course of the preceding 24 months in a port of a Member State, and

- fly the flag of a State listed in the table (rolling three-year average) of above-average detentions and delays, published in the annual report of the MOU.

The refusal of access shall become applicable immediately the ship has been authorised to leave the port where it has been the subject of a third detention.

2. For the purposes of applying paragraph (1), Member States shall comply with the procedures laid down in Annex V, section D.

3. The Commission shall publish every six months the information relating to ships that have been refused access to Community ports in application of this Article."

6) Article 8 is replaced by the following text:

"Article 8

Inspection report

1. On completion of an inspection, a more detailed inspection or an expanded inspection, the inspector shall draw up a report containing at least the information listed in Annex X, giving the results of the inspection, the parts or elements of the ship that have been inspected in the case of a more detailed or an expanded inspection, the details of any decisions taken by the inspector and of the corrective action to be taken by the master, owner or operator.

2. A copy of the inspection report shall be provided to the ship's master, the flag State administration and the organisation responsible for ship surveys and for the issue of class certificates or certificates issued on behalf of the flag State in accordance with the international conventions. In the case of deficiencies warranting the detention of a ship, the document to be given to the master in accordance with paragraph 1 shall include information about the future publication of the detention order in accordance with the provisions of this Directive."

7) In Article 9(5) the words "or recognised organisations responsible for the issue of the ship's certificates shall also be notified where relevant" are replaced by the words "or recognised organisations responsible for the issue of class certificates or certificates issued on behalf of the flag State in accordance with the international conventions shall also be notified where relevant."

8) In Article 10(1) the words "or refusal of access" are inserted after the words "against a detention decision".

9) Article 14(2) is amended as follows:

a) the words "Sirenac E" are replaced by the word "Sirenac",

b) the following subparagraph is added:

"For the purposes of carrying out the inspections referred to in Articles 6 and 7, inspectors shall consult the public and private databases relating to ship inspection accessible through the EQUASIS information system, as soon as it becomes operational".

10) Article 15(2) is replaced by the following:

"2. The information listed in Annex VIII, Parts I and II, and the information on changes, suspensions and withdrawals of class referred to in Article 15(3) of Directive 94/57/EC, shall be available in the Sirenac system. It shall be made public through the EQUASIS information system, when the latter becomes operational, as soon as possible after the inspection has been completed or the detention has been lifted."

11) Articles 17 and 18 are replaced by the following:

"Article 17

Data to monitor implementation

Member States shall provide the Commission with the information listed in Annex X at the intervals stated in that Annex."

"Article 18

Regulatory Committee

1. The Commission shall be assisted by the Committee set up pursuant to Article 12 of Directive 93/75/EEC.

2. Where reference is made to this provision, the regulatory procedure laid down in Article 5 of Decision 1999/468/EC shall apply, in conformity with the provisions of Article 8 of the Decision.

3. The period stipulated in Article 5(6) of Decision 1999/468/EC shall be three months."

12) Article 19(a) is replaced by the following:

"a) adapt the obligations referred to in Article 5, except the figure of 25% referred to in paragraph 1 thereof, in Articles 6, 7, 8, 15 and 17, and in the Annexes to which these Articles refer, on the basis of the experience gained from the implementation of this Directive and taking into account developments in the MOU;"

13) Annex I, Part II is replaced by the text in Annex I to this Directive.

14) In Annex II, the following item 35 is added:

"35. International insurance certificate or any other financial guarantee relating to the cover of pollution damage (for oil tankers covered by the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, 1969, and the 1992 Protocol relating thereto)."

15) In Annex III, item 1, the words "II-8 and II-11" are replaced by the words "and II-8."

16) Annex V is replaced by the text in Annex II to this Directive.

17) Annex VI is amended as follows:

a) In item 3.1 the words "The lack of valid certificates" are replaced by the words "The lack of valid certificates and documents".

b) The following is added to item 3.2:

"15. Failure to carry out the enhanced survey programme in accordance with IMO resolution A.744(18)."

c) The following is added to item 3.6:

"5. Survey report file missing or not in conformity with Regulation 13G(3)(b) of the MARPOL Convention."

18) Annex VIII is replaced by the text in Annex III to this Directive.

19) Annexes IX and X are added, the text of which is in Annex IV to this Directive.

Article 2

Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive no later than . They shall forthwith inform the Commission thereof.

When Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.

Article 3

This Directive shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

Article 4

This Directive is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels,

For the European Parliament For the Council

The President The President

ANNEX I

Annex I, Part II is replaced by the following:

II. Overall targeting factor

The following ships shall be considered as priority for inspection.

1. Ships visiting a port of a Member State for the first time or after an absence of twelve months or more. In applying these criteria Member States shall also take into account those inspections which have been carried out by members of the MOU. In the absence of appropriate data for this purpose, Member States shall rely upon the available Sirenac data and inspect those ships which have not been registered in the Sirenac following the entry into force of that database on 1 January 1993.

2. Ships not inspected by any Member State within the previous six months.

3. Ships whose statutory certificates on the ship's construction and equipment, issued in accordance with the conventions, and the classification certificates, have been issued by organisations which are not recognised under the terms of Council Directive 94/57/EC of 22 November 1994 on common rules and standards for ship inspection and survey organisations and for the relevant activities of maritime administrations.

4. Ships flying the flag of a State appearing in the three-year rolling average table of above-average detentions and delays published in the annual report of the MOU.

5. Ships which have been permitted to leave the port of a Member State on certain conditions, such as:

(a) deficiencies to be rectified before departure;

(b) deficiencies to be rectified at the next port;

(c) deficiencies to be rectified within 14 days;

(d) deficiencies for which other conditions have been specified.

If appropriate action has been taken and all deficiencies have been rectified, this is taken into account.

6. Ships for which deficiencies have been recorded during a previous inspection, according to the number of deficiencies.

7. Ships which have been detained in a previous port.

8. Ships flying the flag of a country which has not ratified all relevant international conventions referred to in Article 2 of this Directive.

9. Ships flying the flag of a country with a deficiency ratio above average.

10. Ships flying the flag of a country with class deficiency above average.

11. Ships above 13 years old.

In determining the order of priority for the inspection of the ships listed above, the competent authority shall take into account the overall target factor displayed on the Sirenac information system, according to Annex I, Section 1 of the MOU. A higher target factor is indicative of a higher priority. The overall target factor is the sum of the applicable target factor values as defined within the framework of the MOU. Items 5, 6 and 7 shall only apply to inspections carried out in the last 12 months. The overall target factor shall not be less than the sum of the values established for items 3, 4, 8, 9, 10 and 11.

If, within three months from the introduction in the framework of the MOU of new target factor values, the Commission is of the view that these values are inappropriate, it may decide, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 19 of Directive 95/21/EC, that these values shall not apply for the purposes of this Directive."

ANNEX II

Annex V is replaced by the following:

"ANNEX V

A. CATEGORIES OF SHIPS SUBJECT TO EXPANDED INSPECTION (as referred to in Article 7(1))1. Gas and chemical tankers older than 10 years of age, as determined on the basis of the date of construction indicated in the ship's safety certificates.

2. Bulk carriers older than 12 years of age, as determined on the basis of the date of construction indicated in the ship's safety certificates.

3. Single hull oil tankers older than 15 years of age, as determined on the basis of the date of construction indicated in the ship's safety certificates.4. Passenger ships older than 15 years of age other than the passenger ships referred to in Article 2(a) and (b) of Directive 1999/35/EC.

B. Information TO BE NOTIFIED TO THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY (as referred to in Article 7(2))

- A. name,

- B. flag,

- C. IMO identification number, if any,

- D. deadweight tonnage,

- E. date of construction of the ship,

- F. for tankers:

- F.a. configuration: single hull, single hull with SBT, double hull,

- F.b. condition of the cargo and ballast tanks: full, empty, inerted,

- F.c. volume and nature of the cargo,

- G. probable time of arrival at the port of destination or pilot station, as required by the competent authority,

- H. planned duration of the call,

- I. planned operations at the port of destination (loading, unloading, other),

- J. date and place of the last inspection carried out in the framework of port State control.

C. PROCEDURES RELATING TO EXPANDED INSPECTION OF CERTAIN CATEGORIES OF SHIPS (as referred to in Article 7(3))

Subject to their practical feasibility or any constraints relating to the safety of persons, the ship or the port, the following items at least must be part of an expanded inspection. Inspectors must be aware that it may jeopardise the safe execution of certain on-board operations, e.g. cargo handling, if tests having a direct effect thereon are required to be carried out during such operations.

1. SHIPS IN GENERAL (Categories in section A)

- Black-out and start of emergency generator,

- Inspection of emergency lighting,

- Operation of emergency fire-pump with two fire hoses connected to the fire main-line,

- Operation of bilge pumps,

- Closing of watertight doors,

- Lowering of one lifeboat to the water,

- Test of remote emergency stop for, e.g., boilers, ventilation and fuel pumps,

- Testing of steering gear including auxiliary steering gear,

- Inspection of emergency source of power to radio installations,

- Inspection and, to the extent possible, test of engine room separator.

2. GAS AND CHEMICAL TANKERS

In addition to the items listed under section 1, the following items are to be considered as part of the expanded inspection for gas and chemical tankers:

- Cargo tank monitoring and safety devices relating to temperature, pressure and ullage,

- Oxygen analysing and explosimeter devices, including their calibration. Availability of chemical detection equipment (bellows) with an appropriate number of suitable gas detection tubes for the specific cargo being carried,

- Cabin escape sets giving suitable respiratory and eye protection for every person on board (if required by the products listed on the International Certificate of Fitness or Certificate of Fitness for the Carriage of Dangerous Chemicals in Bulk or Liquefied Gases in Bulk, as applicable),

- Check that the product being carried is listed in the International Certificate of Fitness or Certificate of Fitness for the Carriage of Dangerous Chemicals in Bulk or Liquefied Gases in Bulk, as applicable,

- The fixed fire-fighting installations on deck, whether they be foam or dry chemical or other as required by the product carried.

3. BULK CARRIERS

In addition to the items listed under section 1, the following items are to be considered as part of the expanded inspection for bulk carriers:

- Possible corrosion of deck machinery mountings,

- Possible deformation and/or corrosion of hatch covers,

- Possible cracks or local corrosion in transverse bulkheads,

- Access to cargo holds,

- Assessment of the safety of the structure on the basis of the reports of structural surveys, the condition evaluation reports, the thickness measurement reports and the descriptive document referred to by IMO resolution A.744(18).

4. OIL TANKERS

In addition to the items listed under section 1, the following items are to be considered as part of an expanded inspection of oil tankers:

- Fixed deck foam system,

- Fire-fighting equipment in general,

- Inspection of fire dampers in engine room, pump room and accommodation,

- Control of pressure of inert gas and oxygen content thereof,

- Examination of the appearance of and any signs of corrosion of at least one of the ballast tanks,

- Assessment of the safety of the structure on the basis of the reports of structural surveys, the condition evaluation reports, the thickness measurement reports and the descriptive document referred to by IMO resolution A.744(18).

5. PASSENGER SHIPS NOT COVERED BY DIRECTIVE 1999/35/EC

In addition to the items listed under section C 1, the following items may also be considered as part of the expanded inspection for passenger ships:

- Testing of fire detection and alarm system,

- Testing of proper closing of fire doors,

- Test of public address system,

- Fire drill where, as a minimum, all sets of firemen's outfits must be demonstrated and part of the catering crew take part,

- Demonstration that key crew members are acquainted with the damage control plan.

If deemed appropriate, the inspection may be continued while the ship is on passage to or from the port in the Member State, with the consent of the ship's master or the operator. Inspectors must not obstruct the operation of the ship, nor must they induce situations that, in the master's judgement, could endanger the safety of the passengers, the crew and the ship.

D. MANDATORY GUIDELINES RELATING TO REFUSAL OF ACCESS TO COMMUNITY PORTS (as referred to in Article 7a(2))

1. If the conditions described in Article 7a are met, the competent authority of the port in which the ship is detained for the third time must inform the captain and the owner or the operator of the ship in writing of the access refusal order served on the ship.

The competent authority must also inform the flag State administration, the classification society concerned, the other Member States, the European Commission, the Centre Administratif des Affaires Maritimes and the MOU Secretariat.

The access refusal order will take effect as soon as the ship has been authorised to leave the port after remediation of the deficiencies leading to the detention.

2. The access refusal order may be lifted if the owner or the operator of the ship is able to show to the satisfaction of the competent authority of the port of destination that the ship can be operated without danger to the safety of passengers or crew, or without risk to other ships, or without presenting an unreasonable threat to the marine environment.

3. To this end, the owner or the operator must address a formal request for the lifting of the access refusal order to the Member State of the Community port of destination. This request must be accompanied by a certificate from the flag State administration or from the classification society acting on its behalf, showing that the ship fully conforms to the applicable provisions of the international conventions and satisfies the conditions mentioned in paragraph 2. The request for the lifting of the access refusal order must also be accompanied, where appropriate, by a certificate from the classification society which has the ship in class showing that the ship conforms to the class standards stipulated by that society.

4. If the request for a lifting of the access refusal order is presented in accordance with paragraph 3, the Member State of the port of destination must, on the basis of the information provided by the owner or the operator of the ship, authorise the ship to proceed to the port of destination in question, for the sole purpose of verifying that the ship meets the conditions specified in paragraph 2.

On arrival at the port of destination, the ship must be subjected to an expanded inspection, the cost of which will be borne by the owner or the operator. The expanded inspection must cover at least the relevant items of Annex V, section C, and the items that were inspected in the course of the last detention in a port of a Member State.

The expanded inspection referred to in the previous subparagraph must be performed by the inspectors of the Member State of the port of destination, assisted by inspectors of a recognised organisation within the meaning of Directive 94/57/EC, who have no commercial interest in the ship inspected.

5. If the results of the expanded inspection satisfy the Member State in accordance with paragraph 2, the access refusal order must be lifted. The owner or the operator of the ship must be informed thereof in writing.

The competent authority must also notify its decision in writing to the flag State administration, the classification society concerned, the other Member States, the European Commission, the Centre Administratif des Affaires Maritimes and the MOU Secretariat.

6. Information relating to ships that have been refused access to Community ports must be made available in the Sirenac system and published in conformity with the provisions of Article 15 and of Annex VIII."

ANNEX III

Annex VIII is replaced by the following:

"ANNEX VIII

Publication of information related to detentions and inspections in ports of Member States

(As referred to in Article 15)

I. - Information published in accordance with Article 15(1) must include the following:

- name of the ship,

- IMO number,

- type of ship,

- tonnage (gt),

- year of construction,

- name and address of the shipowner or operator of the ship,

- in the case of ships carrying liquid or solid cargoes in bulk, the name and address of the charterer and the type of charter (voyage charter or time charter),

- flag State,

- the classification society or classification societies, where relevant, which has/have issued to this ship the class certificates, if any,

- the classification society or classification societies and/or any other party which has/have issued to this ship certificates in accordance with the applicable conventions on behalf of the flag State, stating the certificates delivered,

- port and date of the last expanded inspection stating, where appropriate, whether a detention was ordered,

- port and date of the last special survey and the name of the organisation which carried out the survey,

- number of detentions during the 24 previous months,

- country and port of detention,

- date when the detention was lifted,

- duration of detention, in days,

- number of deficiencies found and the reasons for detention, in clear and explicit terms,

- description of the measures taken by the competent authority and, where relevant, by the classification society as a follow-up to detention,

- if the ship has been refused access to any port within the Community, the reasons for such measure in clear and explicit terms,

- indication, where relevant, of whether the classification society or any other private body that carried out the survey has a responsibility in relation to the deficiencies which, alone or in combination, led to detention,

- description of the measures taken in the case of a ship which has been allowed to proceed to the nearest appropriate repair yard, or which has been refused access to a Community port.

II - Information concerning ships inspected made public in accordance with Article 15(2) must include the following:

- name of the ship,

- IMO number,

- type of ship,

- tonnage (gt),

- year of construction,

- name and address of shipowner or operator of the ship,

- in the case of ships carrying liquid or solid cargoes in bulk, the name and address of the charterer and the type of charter (voyage charter or time charter),

- flag State,

- the classification society or classification societies, where relevant, which has/have issued to this ship the class certificates, if any,

- the classification society or classification societies and/or any other party which has/have issued to this ship certificates in accordance with the applicable conventions on behalf of the flag State, stating the certificates delivered,

- country, port and date of inspection,

- number of deficiencies, by category of deficiency."

ANNEX IV

The following Annexes IX and X are added:

"ANNEX IX

Inspection report drawn up in accordance with Article 8

The inspection report must contain at least the following items.

I- General

1. Competent authority that wrote the report

2. Date and place of inspection

3. Name of the ship inspected

4. Flag

5. Type of ship

6. IMO number

7. Call sign

8. Tonnage (gt)

9. Deadweight tonnage (where relevant)

10. Year of construction

11. The classification society or classification societies, where relevant, which has/have issued to this ship the class certificates, if any

12. The classification society or classification societies and/or any other party which has/have issued to this ship certificates in accordance with the applicable conventions on behalf of the flag State

13. Name and address of the ship's owner or the operator

14. Name and address of the charterer and type of charter (voyage charter or time charter) in the case of ships carrying liquid or solid cargoes in bulk

15. Final date of writing the inspection report.

II - Information relating to inspection

1. Certificates issued in application of the relevant international conventions, authority or organisation that issued the certificate(s) in question, including the date of issue and expiry

2. Parts or elements of the ship that were inspected (in the case of more detailed or expanded inspection)

3. Type of inspection (inspection, more detailed inspection, expanded inspection)

4. Nature of the deficiencies

5. Measures taken.

III - Additional information in the event of detention

1. Date of the detention order

2. Date of lifting the detention order

3. Nature of the deficiencies warranting the detention order

4. Information on the last intermediate or annual survey

5. Indication, where relevant, of whether the classification society or any other private body that carried out the survey has a responsibility in relation to the deficiencies which, alone or in combination, led to detention

6. Measures taken.

ANNEX X

Data to be provided in the context of monitoring implementation

Member States must communicate the following information to the Commission in application of Article 17, using the model tables below.

1. Data to be provided annually

Every year Member States must provide the Commission with the following data for the preceding year by 1 April at the latest.

1.1. Number of inspectors acting on their behalf in the framework of port State control of shipping.

This information must be communicated to the Commission using the following model table.

>TABLE POSITION>

This information must be provided at national level and for each port of the Member State concerned. For the purposes of this Annex, a port is taken to mean an individual port and the geographical area covered by an inspector or team of inspectors, comprising several individual ports where appropriate. The same inspector may work in more than one port/geographical area.

1.2. Total number of individual ships that entered their ports at national level.

2. Data to be provided on a quarterly basis

Member States must provide the Commission every three months with a detailed list of movements of individual ships that entered their ports, using the following model.

>TABLE POSITION>