EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 16.10.2015 SWD(2015) 197 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and Council REFIT

Adjusting course: EU Passenger Ship Safety Legislation Fitness Check

{COM(2015) 508 final}



COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and Council REFIT

Adjusting course: EU Passenger Ship Safety Legislation Fitness Check



Table of content 1Executive summary 2Introduction 2.1Why a fitness check on EU passenger ship safety legislation? 2.2Purpose of this fitness check 2.3Scope of the fitness check 3Background to the initiative 3.1Objectives of the EU passenger ship safety legislation 3.2Expected effects of the EU passenger ship safety legislation 4Evaluation questions 5Methodology 5.1Division of tasks 5.2Data collection 5.3Stakeholder consultation 5.4Main conclusions of stakeholder consultations 5.5Steering group 5.6Data analysis and judgment 5.6.1Overall approach 5.6.2Limitations to methodological approach

5.6.3Baseline 6Implementation state of play 6.1Passenger ship safety: International, EU and national standards 6.2Ship life cycle costs 6.3Market of domestic passenger ships 6.3.1The EU domestic passenger fleet 6.3.2EU internal market 6.4Safety issues and accidents 6.5Implementation of the EU passenger ship safety legislation: Issues 6.5.1Directive 2009/45/EC 6.5.1.1Uneven implementation: Aluminium built ships 6.5.1.2Outside scope: Composite and wood built ships 6.5.1.3Inadequate scope: Ships of less than 24m in length 6.5.1.4Complex definition of sea areas for non-HSC 6.5.1.5Difference in safety standards between Class C and D ships 6.5.2Directive 2003/25/EC 6.5.3Directive 1999/35/EC 6.5.4Directive 98/41/EC 6.5.4.1Outdated and overlapping requirements on counting, registration and reporting of persons on board 6.5.4.2Inadequate transmission of data

6.5.4.3Gap in the requirements: Passengers' nationality 7Answers to the evaluation questions 7.1Coordination 7.2Relevance 7.3Effectiveness 7.4Efficiency 7.5European added value 7.6Coherence 8Conclusions 9Recommendations 10Annex 1: Glossary – Abbreviations and definitions 11Annex 2: EU internal market 12Annex 3: Accident analysis and safety level comparison 13Annex 4: Directives in the scope of the fitness check: Additional issues 14Annex 5: Overview of additional safety requirements, equivalents, exemptions and safeguard measures which have been accepted or rejected under Directive 2009/45/EC 15Annex 6: Quantification 16Annex 7: Summary of the Workshop with national experts on the Fitness Check on Passenger Ship Safety Legislation, Brussels, 23 March 2015 17Annex 8: Evaluation frame 18Annex 9: EU domestic passenger fleet 1Executive summary

1.Passenger ships play an important role in the mobility of EU citizens, given that 23 out of 28 Member States are coastal countries, with 4 being island states. In average, it is estimated more than 390 million people pass every year through EU ports (397 million in 2013). 2.The EU passenger ship safety policy framework was set in place to address: 1) potential safety risks caused by the fact that international rules do not apply to domestic voyages (or that they are insufficient) and by the uncertainty of whether standards are well applied and maximum number of passengers authorised to be carried on board is respected; 2) difficulties in search and rescue operations due to insufficient survivability of ro-ro passenger ships and to insufficient information on the passengers on board being available; and 3) differences in applied safety standards. 3.The EU legislation on passenger ship safety has been put in place over a period of 15 years mainly in response to accidents. This has created a regulatory framework that is fragmented and varies in terms of its coverage. Past evaluations, inspections carried out by the European Maritime Safety Agency and stakeholders' feedback have underlined inconsistencies and to some extent unclear definitions. 4.The purpose of this fitness check was therefore to assess if the current legislative framework for passenger ship safety is fit for purpose and if its objectives are relevant and are being met in an efficient and effective manner. More specifically, as part of the Commission' Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme (REFIT), this fitness check aimed to assess the potential for simplifying and streamlining the existing framework, i.e. to maintain EU rules where necessary and proportionate; ensure their correct implementation; and eliminate potential overlap of obligations and inconsistencies between different pieces of legislation. 5.Four Directives were chosen for this fitness check – although their scope differs, together they represent a set of key safety standards and requirements for passenger ships sailing in the EU waters. The most extensive EU legislative instrument is Directive 2009/45/EC, which covers passenger ships made of steel or equivalent material and high speed craft. Where applicable and feasible, it is based on internationally agreed standards, namely the International Convention for the Safety of Life At Sea (SOLAS). In addition, Directives 2003/25/EC, 1999/35/EC and 98/41/EC provide for specific EU rules that apply to roll-on roll-off passenger ships, high speed craft and the registration of persons on board. 6.The fitness check has been carried out with the support of the European Maritime Safety Agency, in particular feeding on its technical expertise and implementation follow-up; and an external contractor for data collection and analysis, and cost-benefit analysis. As of 2011, stakeholders have been consulted on a regular basis, both via open public and targeted consultations taking place in different contexts. 7.The results of the fitness check showed that the key objectives of the EU passenger ship safety legislation related to passenger safety and internal market are being overall met and remain highly relevant. The EU passenger ship safety legal framework resulted in a common safety level for passenger ships within the EU and a level playing field between operators as well as increased transfer of ships between Member States. In addition to harmonised safety standards, the system of inspections and surveys played a key role in maintaining the required high level of safety. 8.The fitness check also revealed that these objectives can be in some instances delivered in a simpler, clearer and more proportionate manner. The potential to simplify, clarify and repeal a number of ambiguous, outdated or overlapping requirements has been identified in number of areas. 9.For example, it revealed a significant simplification potential namely concerning the Directive 1999/35/EC that overlaps with flag State surveys and port State inspections. Member States have implemented these overlapping and inconsistent requirements in a pragmatic way, which means the current legal framework no longer reflects the state of affairs. The complexity of the EU passenger ship safety legislation is aggravated by an outdated format of the safety standards themselves (i.e. the Annex to Directive 2009/45/EC), which has become over time extremely difficult to read and to compare with the existing international requirements. 10.The fitness check also revealed that a number of provisions, definitions and requirements are ambiguous to such extent that in certain cases they may hinder an effective implementation of the legislation. These relate in particular to the scope and application of the harmonised EU standards, such as the type of ships covered, regularity of inspections etc. 11.Furthermore, there has proven to be a mismatch between the existing prescriptive safety standards for small steel ships of below 24 m in length and the identified safety and internal market objectives. Given that such small ships are in the main built from materials other than steel, the vast majority of the fleet in terms of numbers of ships is currently not covered by the harmonised EU safety standards (96%). It has also proven increasingly difficult to adapt the prescriptive, one-size-fits all SOLAS standards for this category of ships, particularly due to their high sensitivity to local operational conditions. 12.Besides the simplification potential, the fitness check also revealed a number of issues that unnecessarily reduce the effectiveness of search and rescue operations. For example, while experience has shown that an effective search and rescue operation requires immediate access to accurate data as regards the number of persons on board, this is not always the case. 13.Finally, a number of other, substantial issues related to the adequacy and proportionality of existing safety standards have been identified, such as damage stability requirements; the differences in safety requirements between the different classes of ships; the application of inspection regimes at national level; and the possibility to develop harmonised standards for ships currently not covered by the EU regulatory framework. These issues will necessitate further assessment and consultations with experts. Importantly, some of them should be first dealt with at the international level, before further action at the EU level can be envisaged. 14.Based on these results, a set of recommendations has been drawn for the consideration of follow-up actions.

2Introduction 15.The Commission's 2010 Communication on Smart Regulation introduced "Fitness Checks" as comprehensive policy evaluations assessing whether the regulatory framework for an entire policy sector is fit for purpose. The fitness checks' aim is to identify excessive administrative burdens, overlaps, gaps, inconsistencies and/or obsolete measures which may have appeared over time, and to help to identify the cumulative impact of legislation. Their findings should serve as a basis for drawing policy conclusions on the future of the relevant regulatory framework. 16.In December 2012, the European Commission announced the launch of the Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme (REFIT). REFIT emphasises the importance of EU regulation effectively and efficiently pursuing only those public policy objectives which are clearly best achieved at the EU level. According to the Communication, the programme will “identify, assess, adopt, and monitor the implementation of, initiatives which will result in significant regulatory cost reduction or simplification”. A second communication related to REFIT ("Results and next steps") released in October 2013 identifies a number of policy areas, in which a regulatory fitness check should be conducted. One of these areas is the "Passenger Ship Safety Legislation". 17.The safety of passenger ships is regulated at three levels: through international conventions to which EU Member States (and in rare cases the EU) are party, EU passenger ship safety legislation and national law. For ships engaged in international voyages, including between two EU Member States, the International Convention for the Safety Of Life At Sea (SOLAS) is the most safety-relevant applicable convention. It is administered by the International Maritime Organization (IMO), a UN body, and has been ratified by all EU Member States. At EU level, the most extensive legislative instrument is Directive 2009/45/EC regulating ships made of steel (or equivalent material) and high speed craft (HSC) engaged in domestic voyages. Presently neither international nor EU rules apply to non-steel ships navigating domestically and national administrations have established their own rules, some of them based on the international or European rules. 18.In recent years, the European Union and its Member States have put efforts into improving the maritime safety legislation and promoting high-quality standards. In 2009 the co-legislators adopted the third maritime package that aimed to improve the effectiveness of the existing measures on maritime safety; however, it did not include specific measures on passenger ship safety. The 2011 White Paper for the future of transport – "Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area – Towards a competitive and resource efficient transport system", recognised the need to modernise the current EU passenger ship safety legislative framework.

2.1Why a fitness check on EU passenger ship safety legislation? 19.Passenger ships play an important role in the mobility of EU citizens, given that 23 out of 28 Member States are coastal countries, with 4 being island states. In average, it is estimated more than 390 million people pass every year through EU ports (397 million in 2013). 20.The EU legislation on Passenger Ship Safety has been put in place over a period of 15 years mainly in response to accidents. This has created a regulatory framework that is fragmented and varies in terms of its coverage. Past evaluations, inspections carried out by the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) and stakeholders' feedback have underlined inconsistencies and to some extent unclear definitions. 21.An ex-post evaluation of the EU acquis related to passenger ship safety was carried out in 2011. An open public consultation took place between 13 April and 5 July 2012 and was followed by an impact assessment of identified policy options. However, these exercises failed to gather sufficient evidence to support the legislative review and revealed poor data availability, especially in terms of national passenger ships fleet and safety records. Therefore the Commission has undertaken a more systematic and comprehensive fitness check of the legislative framework in place. While more data became available with time, this fitness check has also been an occasion to collect further data and carry out additional consultations, desk analysis and case studies. 2.2Purpose of this fitness check 22.The purpose of this fitness check is to assess if the current legislative framework for Passenger Ship Safety is fit for purpose and if its objectives are relevant and are being met in an efficient and effective manner. More specifically, this fitness check aims to assess the potential for simplifying and streamlining the existing framework, i.e. to (i) maintain EU rules where necessary and proportionate; (ii) ensure their correct implementation; and (iii) eliminate potential overlap of obligations and inconsistencies between different pieces of legislation. 2.3Scope of the fitness check 23.The fitness check covers all EU Member States and EEA countries. 24.Four Directives have been chosen for this fitness check – although their scope differs (see table below), together they represent a set of key safety standards and requirements for surveys of passenger ships sailing in the EU waters. Where applicable and feasible, these requirements build on the internationally agreed standards (namely SOLAS), which in principle do not apply to domestic shipping . 25.The first two Directives, i.e. Dir. 2009/45/EC and 2003/25/EC, are closely linked as they define the technical safety standards for passenger ships – sailing either on domestic or, as regards the latter, domestic and international voyages. In addition, Directive 1999/35/EC provides for a specific inspection framework for the most frequent passenger transport, i.e. regular service of roll-on roll-off passenger ships (known as ro-ro passenger or ro-pax ships) and HSC. Finally, Directive 98/41/EC complements the general safety standards by ensuring that both the passenger capacity is respected and that search and rescue in the aftermath of any accident can be dealt with effectively. See annex 4 for more details on each of the Directives in the scope of the fitness check and the related ones.



Table 1: Overview of Directives in scope of the fitness check Content Scope Voyage Ships Application Directive 2009/45/EC Safety standards Surveys (general) Domestic (a) Passenger ships made of steel and equivalent material; (b) HSC All ships irrespective of size (flexibility for ships below 24 m of length) Classes (A, B, C, D) Directive 2003/25/EC Safety standards (specific: stability requirements for ro-pax) Domestic and international Ro-ro passenger ships International: Regular service Domestic: Class A, B and C Directive 1999/35/EC Surveys (specific: ro-pax and HSC in regular service) Domestic and international (a) Ro-ro passenger ships; (b) HSC Regular service only Domestic: Class A Directive 98/41/EC Safety standards Surveys (specific: registration of persons on board) Domestic and international All passenger ships Length of the voyage (below 20 nautical miles only counting of persons on board) Source: Commission, 2015 26.At the international level, the EU passenger ship safety legislation is related mainly to the following instruments, as amended: - SOLAS - the 1974 International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (the 1974 SOLAS Convention); - the 1966 International Convention on Load Lines; - the International Code for Safety of High Speed Craft;

- the International Management Code for the Safe Operation of Ships and for Pollution Prevention; - the 1979 International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue.

3Background to the initiative 3.1Objectives of the EU passenger ship safety legislation 27.The main objective of the EU legislation on passenger ships is to improve the level of safety of life on passenger ships sailing in EU waters. In addition, a second objective is to remove potential barriers to the internal market, including the transfer of ships between Member States. 28.The EU passenger ship safety policy framework was set in place to address: 1) potential safety risks caused by the fact that international rules do not apply to domestic voyages (or that they are insufficient ) and by the uncertainty of whether standards are well applied and maximum number of passengers respected; 2) difficulties in search and rescue operations due to insufficient survivability of ro-ro passenger ships and to insufficient available information on the passengers on board; and 3) differences in applied safety standards. 29.Safety of passengers can be maintained at high level through constant update of the safety standards and through more efficient search and rescue operations. On the other hand, the internal market of passenger ships may be further developed by assuring the same level of safety regardless the area of operation (proportionality of rules) and by allowing for mutual recognition of certificates and national decisions. 30.The full set of general, specific and operational objectives of the Passenger Ship Safety legislation are provided in the below table:



Table 2: Overview of policy objectives General objectives Specific objectives Operational objectives Improve safety level in maritime transport Improve safety of ships - Ensure that the number of passengers does not exceed an allowed number - Improve the survivability of ro-pax ships - Extend the applicability of international rules to non-covered areas as far as possible - Ensure the proportionality of rules - Ensure verification and control of rules - Ensure that needs of people with reduced mobility are addressed - Ensure the availability of information in case of accident/search and rescue situations - Provide a framework for cooperation between Member States - Ensure that decisions/certificates are mutually recognized between Member States Support search and rescue operations Enable the development of the internal market in maritime transport Ensure the same level of safety regardless of the area of operation Ensure the mutual recognition of certificates and national decisions Source: EU passenger ship safety legislation, Commission, 2015 3.2Expected effects of the EU passenger ship safety legislation 31.The EU passenger ship safety legislation has provided for a legal framework including a range of requirements (or inputs). These requirements can be translated in a range of observable outputs or immediate deliverables of the legislation. This includes amongst others the conformity of ships with safety standards, the issuance and mutual recognition of certificates, the classification of ships, surveys, etc. 32.The outputs of the passenger ship safety legislative framework are meant to contribute to achieving the four expected results: 1) uniform level of safety proportional to risks; 2) safer ships through compliance with improved safety measures and requirements; 3) more efficient handling of aftermath of ship accidents, incl. search and rescue; and 4) mutual recognition of certificates and of national decisions. 33.In the longer run, the results were meant to translate in a common safety level for all passenger ships within the EU (expected impact on safety), a level playing field between EU ports and passenger ships and increased mobility (expected impact on internal market). If these impacts are realised, the general objectives of the passenger ship safety legislation will have been fulfilled. 34.It should be noted that high level of safety benefits not only passengers but all those involved in the transport of passengers. Therefore operators will run lower risks with respect to accidents and the subsequent costs involved (liability costs; repair or replacement costs etc.). Also the high level of safety prevents or limits ships being involved in accidents at sea and as such will have an implicit beneficial effect on the marine environment as well as an explicit effect on the well-being of the crew. 35.The diagram below shows the simplified intervention logic, illustrating how the EU legislation on passenger ship safety covered by the fitness check was expected to interact and to achieve its objectives.

Figure 1: Passenger ship safety legislation intervention logic Source: EU passenger ship safety legislation, Commission, 2015 4Evaluation questions 36.The fitness check has addressed the six following evaluation criteria: coordination, relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, EU added value and coherence. The evaluation questions were defined on the basis of the intervention logic presented above. In particular they aim to assess the various identified links between problems and needs, objectives, inputs and effects. The detailed evaluation questions are answered in Chapter 7. Coordination 37.As explained above, the EU passenger ship safety legislation has been set up in reactions to various accidents and the different pieces of legislation that form part of the framework were adopted at different times and in a different context. Hence, it is important to assess whether the resulting framework works together as a framework for passenger ship safety. Relevance 38.The fitness check has looked at whether the current safety framework is adequate to address the safety and internal market issues identified. The analysis under this criterion has in particular focussed on the question of proportionality of rules in terms of standards, navigation areas, and exemptions and equivalencies, and has looked at the how the Directives relate to international rules. Effectiveness 39.The effectiveness of the passenger ship safety legislation refers to the realisation of the expected effects. The fitness check has therefore looked at whether the Directives have contributed to increased safety and to the internal market. Under this criterion, the contribution of various inputs to these overall objectives has also been assessed (exemptions and equivalencies, certification and surveys). Unintended impacts have also been investigated. Efficiency 40.Under the efficiency criterion, the analysis has covered the cost components involved for the different stakeholders (national administrations, ship owners and operators, ship builders) to comply with the provisions in the passenger ship safety legislation. This includes charges, compliance costs and administrative burden in relation to safety standards, certification and surveys, and navigation areas. European Added Value 41.The analysis of EU added value has looked at whether action at EU level is the most appropriate. Coherence 42.Finally, the fitness check has looked at the coherence of the passenger ship safety framework, both internally (i.e. gaps or overlaps) and externally in terms of coherence with EU challenges and objectives.

5Methodology 5.1Division of tasks 43.The fitness check has been carried out with the support of: EMSA, in particular feeding on its technical expertise and implementation follow-up; An external contractor for data collection and analysis, and cost-benefit analysis. 5.2Data collection 44.In addition to the ex-post evaluation, public consultation and impact assessment process mentioned above, two additional data collection exercises have been carried out: The Commission prepared pre-filled questionnaires containing the available data/statistics on national fleet, based on the outcome of previous stakeholders' consultation and available data from EMSA. Member States were requested to verify and to complete the information. Replies were received from 23 Member States (including Croatia) , plus Norway. The response rate to the questionnaire was quite high – in terms of respondents as well as in terms of questions answered by the Member States, so the data collected in this step do not present many limitations. Case studies were carried out by the contractor, with support from the Commission, with 11 Member States (Croatia, Estonia, Portugal, Italy, Greece, Spain, France, United Kingdom, The Netherlands, Denmark and Finland) and bilateral contacts arranged with shipbuilding companies and associations, ship operators and owners aiming to get additional input . 45.Secondary data was also in support of the fitness check: Available statistics were reviewed and used were appropriate. In particular, use was made of Eurostat data. EMSA also provided safety statistics (number of accidents/incidents and causes by Member State and by ship type) as well as data to pre-fill the questionnaires for Member States. Feedback on implementation received through EMSA visits (related to the passenger registration Directive 98/41/EC) was also analysed by EMSA and used in the fitness check. Other publications available on the topic have also been reviewed. Desk research was carried out both by EMSA and by the contractor. Key findings from desk research of the contractor are detailed in the contractor's report. 5.3Stakeholder consultation 46.The Commission services have discussed the implementation of Directives in the scope of the fitness check with stakeholders on an on-going basis, both via open public and targeted consultations taking place in different contexts. 47.Targeted consultations took place within the context of 2011 evaluation, 2012 impact assessment and 2014 fitness check exercises. The detailed results of these consultations are available in the corresponding support studies and are reflected in this fitness check. In addition, stakeholders have been informed about the on-going assessments on numerous occasions, in order to incentivise them to respond to the questionnaires, to express their views and to bring forward any relevant evidence. Such occasions include the regular meetings of the Committee on Safe Seas and Prevention of Pollution from Ships and the Passenger Ship Safety Expert Group, as well as ad-hoc meetings with national, industry and NGO representatives. A workshop dedicated to the fitness check results took place on 23 March 2015. 48.An on-line public consultation was organised between 13 April and 5 July 2012. 48 contributions were received, mainly from national administrations, from organisations/associations representing shipowners, shipbuilders, equipment manufacturers and passengers as well as from individual companies such as shipbuilders and shipowners. The public consultation phase was concluded with a stakeholder seminar on 4 September 2012. More recently, stakeholders had an opportunity to express their views in a recent open public consultation on the quality of EU shipping, namely as regards the adequacy of existing international and EU legislative framework on ship safety.

5.4Main conclusions of stakeholder consultations 49.In principle, stakeholders agreed that the passenger ship safety legislative framework is important in improving safety and facilitating a level playing field. However, it also became clear that the applicability of, and the relationship between, the international and EU safety standards for passenger ships is not very clear. 50.When questioning the added value of EU, or even national safety standards, in addition to international rules (primarily SOLAS), stakeholders have not necessarily recognised that: (a) SOLAS does not automatically apply to domestic shipping (voyages between the ports of the same country); (b) its standards may not be fully adapted to or practicable in domestic voyages; and (c) the standards may not be implemented in a common manner. 51.More concretely, stakeholders highlighted a set of problems related to the varied implementation of the passenger ship safety legal framework, pointing to the complexity and the lack of clarity in a number of definitions and requirements, overlaps and outdated reporting requirements. A question has been raised regarding the proportionality and adequacy of safety requirements for small steel ships and unintended consequences concerning ships outside the scope of the current legal framework. This has led to a demand to improve the current regulatory framework, with more proportionate and simpler rules thereby facilitating overall administration, enforcement and eliminating unnecessary costs. 52.Shipbuilders and industry (especially as regards smaller ships) emphasised that any review of EU legislative framework should not create further administration costs on top of costs created by already existing national and international legislation. 5.5Steering group 53.The work on this fitness check was launched early 2014. A Passenger Ship Safety Inter-Service Steering Group (PSS ISG) was set-up and met 4 times between April 2014 and June 2015. It has been consulted numerous times in between in writing. 5.6Data analysis and judgment 5.6.1Overall approach 54.The fitness check results from a combination of technical, legal and economic analysis. 55.The legal analysis performed by the Commission services assessed gaps, overlaps, inconsistencies and overall coherence of the legislative framework. This analysis has also fed into the economic analysis. In addition, the contractor carried out a comparison of national rules applicable to small non-steel ships and compliance costs assessments (e.g. costs to build a small steel ship according to current rules). 56.The technical analysis was mainly carried out by EMSA and addressed the following topics: effectiveness and proportionality assessment for current technical requirements: safety issues and risk assessment; technical standards and safety procedures (e.g. current technical standards for small steel ships); navigation areas definition; exemptions/equivalencies/additional requirements;

systems of certifications and inspections/surveys; and a comparative analysis of current rules with less or more stringent rules (e.g. SOLAS). 57.The economic analysis was completed by the contractor with guidance and support from the Commission services and EMSA on technical issues. The contractor carried out an analysis of the responses received to the Member States' questionnaire. This covered the analysis of the following elements: Number of ships by Member State, type of ship (steel, non-steel, offshore (service) vessel), size of ships (>= 24m and <24m); Number of passengers; Number of ships by Member State per navigation area (A,B,C, and D); Number of ships travelling nationally and internationally; Number of ships transferred between Member States, changes of flag. On the basis of the findings from the Member States questionnaire and from additional interviews and desk research, the contractor provided an analysis of the passenger ship market and an assessment of whether an internal market for domestic passenger ships exists. The contractor also carried out a cost-benefit analysis. This includes the assessment of regulatory costs under Directive 2009/45/EC, costs and benefits related to inspections and certification, costs and benefits for exemption and equivalency arrangements, costs related to the update procedure with international standards and potential savings from streamlining of the current framework. 5.6.2Limitations to methodological approach 58.The external study carried out by the contractor has permitted the gathering for the first time of extensive quantitative data. It includes all data that could have been gathered in a reliable and proportionate manner at this point of time. Although the available data did not allow for the carrying out a fully-fledged cost-benefit analysis of every single regulatory requirement and the range of uncertainty is rather high , they are considered to provide an informative input to the fitness check analysis and a sufficient basis for the subsequent review and monitoring processes. 59.For example, the associations who participated could not always answer all questions, especially the ones where specific data were requested. Data about the domestic passenger traffic market for instance, is very specific and not available. A share of this analysis hence relied on a qualitative assessment. 60.In addition, the data collected via the questionnaires as regards the number of ships under various categories reported by Member States needed to be checked for quality and corrected accordingly. Although these corrections were not significant in relative terms, they impacted on the absolute number of ships reported under a given category. For example, the number of small ships, i.e. below 24 m in length, was originally slightly over-reported and therefore corrected downwards. Some other minor corrections have been implemented (concerning, for example, wooden ships wrongly reported under the Directive) or the composite ships under the Directive, all of which being high-speed craft and not standard passenger ships. These corrections have been made by the Commission and EMSA on the basis of information available at the time of finalisation of this fitness check and are therefore not reflected in the support study by Tractebel. 61.Furthermore, the comparison between the ships outside and inside the scope of EU regulations, carried out in the support study, reflected regulatory costs only. Of course the choice of the ships building material affects construction costs and operating costs (aluminium ships might be somewhat more expensive than steel ships to construct but are lighter and therefore have lower fuel costs). These cost differences are not driven by regulations and could not be accounted for in this analysis (they are relevant though in the life-cycle analysis ). 62.The distinction between pure regulatory costs and costs due to the choice of building materials was not always clear. For some topics the distinction could be easily made (e.g. life-saving appliances), but for other topics the regulatory costs are part of the construction cost (e.g. fire insulation regulations, construction). Therefore the comparability between the rules set out in Directive 2009/45/EC and those in the national legislation is limited for some topics but higher for other topics. 5.6.3Baseline

63.As regards the level of safety, it should be noted that the situation before the entry into force of the EU passenger ship safety legislation is not known. Neither the data on the domestic passenger fleet nor the accidents in domestic waters of Member States had been collected or recorded in a systematic manner at EU level. Furthermore, the desk research did not reveal any comparable data in other jurisdictions, such as Japan, South Korea, the U.S. or Canada. Therefore, wherever possible, a reference is made to the international standards and processes – which, although not fully comparable, provide a common denominator for both the EU and national legislative frameworks.



6Implementation state of play 6.1Passenger ship safety: International, EU and national standards 64.The safety of passenger ships is regulated at three levels: International, EU and national. 65.For ships engaged in international voyages, including between two EU Member States, the SOLAS Convention is applicable. The SOLAS Convention is generally regarded as the most important of all international treaties concerning the safety of ships. Its first version was adopted in 1914, in response to the Titanic disaster. The main objective of SOLAS is to define minimum standards for the construction, equipment and operation of all kinds of ships (e.g. passenger, cargo, tankers etc.). 66.It should however be kept in mind that international standards have been developed with a certain purpose and cannot simply be transposed to passenger ships used for domestic voyages. Indeed, SOLAS 1974 standards have been developed for international voyages and maintain an internationally agreed safety level adapted to circumstances applicable to such voyages. These standards may therefore imply high costs with negative implications for a sustainable and competitive exploitation of passenger ships used only for domestic voyages. 67.For instance, SOLAS requires the application of the International Safety Management Code (ISM - SOLAS Chapter IX) and the International Ship and Port Security System (ISPS - SOLAS Chapter XI). Although these do not deal with construction or equipment but mainly with organisation of operations of ship and owner/operator, they could impose a heavy burden on smaller or medium sized shipowners/operators. 68.SOLAS requirements are currently set out in a form of detailed, prescriptive safety standards. Although there is an on-going debate at IMO level about transforming SOLAS into a set of goal based requirements, it is likely to be a long lasting process that will advance only if it will sufficiently address concerns raised by a number of IMO members (see overview of pros and cons below).



Table 7: Overview of pros and cons of goal based vs prescriptive ship safety standards PROs CONs Prescriptive safety standards (current approach) Requirements are clear and transparent for shipbuilders and -owners as well as for national authorities; Implementation of requirements is the same which gives assurance on safety levels and contributes to a single market; In principle, no further legislation or guidance necessary. Leaves less freedom to adjust to local circumstances, apart from the possibility for exemptions or equivalents; Leaves less freedom for shipbuilders, provides certain limitations to radically innovative designs; Necessitates regulatory updates. Goal based standards (possible future approach) Leaves a degree of freedom to adjust for local circumstances, given that the same safety levels can be achieved in different ways; Promotes radically innovative designs – as long as national administrations are able to verify that the required safety level is met; No need for frequent regulatory updates. Differences in implementation and interpretation of safety standards, potential hurdles for the internal market; High technical complexity, enforcement costs and uncertainty about the achieved safety level; In the absence of closer link between shipowners, operators, passengers and national administrations, may lead to prescriptive rules anyhow. Source: Commission, 2015 69.The EU passenger ship safety legislation has been principally modelled and shaped on the international requirements and in reaction to a number of major accidents (e.g. the accidents with the Herald of Free Enterprise, the Estonia ). On the basis of regional cooperation between national maritime administrations , the EU also introduced a system of port State control with the aim to eliminate, or at least to reduce the number of, ships sailing in EU waters which do not comply with stipulated EU and IMO convention requirements. 70.Given that ship safety is not a static concept but rather an area in continuous development, relevant regulations must be reviewed and updated in view of lessons learnt from accidents and of scientific and technical progress. Moreover, providing a common level of safety does not necessarily mean that all the safety standards should be identical for all passenger ships, but should be adapted to the level of risk of a navigation area and to the type of ship (i.e. passenger ship, ro-pax vessel, high speed craft) to ensure an equivalent level of safety. 71.Within the EU framework, Directive 2009/45/EC makes direct reference to SOLAS and the HSC Code in their up-to-date versions for Class A ships and the updating procedure for bringing across changes in the IMO texts into EU law is therefore automatic. However, international standards do not apply to ships of Class B, C and D engaging in domestic voyages only. The main differences between domestic ships and international ships are related to the limitations in navigation that domestic ships have. Full alignment with international standards may therefore not be appropriate. 72.In addition, the enforcement mechanism at the EU level, technical assistance and support provided by EMSA and applicable inspections and surveys play a key role in maintaining the desired high level of safety for passenger ships. 73.In this context, it can be also noted that the IMO, in the aftermath of accidents involving domestic passenger ships (for example the Sewol ferry in Korea in April 2014), has urged its members to develop and maintain technical safety standards for domestic passenger ships (i.e. where such do not exist yet). It pointed to the added value of regional (as compared to national) standards both from the perspective of administrative workload as well as enforcement. The EU passenger ship safety legislative framework may serve as a prime example of such regional legislation already in place.

Box 1: Excerpt from draft IMO guidelines for domestic passenger ships - Regional cooperation and port State control 11.1 The development and maintenance of technical safety regulations, applicable to ships that are not subject to the IMO and ILO international regulations, may also be carried out at a regional level. The development and maintenance of such regulations on a regional basis should result in common regulations that ease the workload of Administrations and provide a regional safety standard, acceptable to the participating countries. 11.2 Where such regional standards are in force, or where national regulations are mutually accepted between countries in the region, whether or not a regional agreement on port State control is in force, the control of non-convention ships would be easier and more effective. In the exercise of his/her functions, the Port State Control Officer could make reference to mutually acceptable requirements. Source: IMO, 2015 74.Although there is no evidence of safety concerns with respect to passenger ships (or requirements) falling outside the scope of the EU rules, the existence of different national standards necessarily leads to differences in measures, approaches and interpretations, making the transfer of ships between EU registers a challenge . 75.To illustrate the differences in existing safety standards at national and EU level, a detailed comparison has been carried out for 4 reference countries . While the comparison is relatively straightforward for same safety standards (such as life saving appliances and fire protection), it is more challenging for others (such as ship structure and construction). Bearing this limitation in mind, the national legislation in the reference countries (representing the large part of the passenger ships in Europe) appears to be comparable to or less stringent than the EU safety standards. 76.More concretely, for those topics that could be compared quantitatively (i.e. life saving appliances, part of the fire safety measures), the national legislation proved to be somewhat less stringent (e.g. reduced life raft capacity, no automatic sprinkler required). For those topics that could be compared only qualitatively (i.e. construction and part of the fire safety measures), the national legislation was found to be often less detailed or leaving more room for exemptions. These differences may not necessarily lead to different safety levels – as long as it is possible to 'compensate' them by additional measures tailored to local and geophysical conditions, such as navigation restrictions. Box 2: Example of differences in national standards concerning fire safety measures France: The requirements with regard to the insulation of bulkheads: Where A-level insulation is required, A-30 is sufficient (Directive 2009/45/EC prescribes A-60 insulation on many divisions in the ship). No sprinklers are required for larger ships; extra firefighter outfit is required also for small ships. Italy and Spain: Insulation of bulkheads: Legislation refers to an outdated version of SOLAS (1988 and 1974 version respectively). UK: The requirements with regard to the insulation of bulkheads: the UK legislation only mentions that A-level divisions are required between some rooms. The requirement for and automatic fire detection alarms is not mentioned neither so for sprinklers. Source: Tractebel, 2015 77.It also needs to be recognised that developing and updating national standards requires a sufficient amount of resources and technical expertise available at national level. Otherwise there is a risk that standards would not keep track of new developments in the shipping industry and thus become outdated. This starts being apparent in some Member States where the safety standards are relatively old (see box above). National administrations may entrust the safety assessments and preparatory work to classification societies (as is currently the case for surveys and discussions at international level, to which classification societies extensively contribute). 78.It should be noted that since 1998, when the first EU safety standards for passenger ships sailing in domestic waters were introduced , several amendments have taken place in order to keep track with the improvement of technical requirements concerning safety rules and standards for passenger ships . These amendments reflected the update of IMO Conventions, including for example the introduction of ISPS , ECDIS , Search and Rescue locating devices, life-boat release mechanisms etc. In practice, not all IMO amendments that have an impact on domestic passenger ships will have an impact on all Member States as each Member State has its own geographical characteristics or a different fleet composition. 79.The following table illustrates the differences in costs where the update of national legislation is done by every Member State individually. It is assumed that half of the amendments are applicable to each of the 28 Member States. Such update of national legislation entails a cost of ca. EUR 162.000 in total, which means that this procedure is more costly than a common update of standards at EU level. Table 8: Estimation of total cost for the update of EU vis-à-vis national standards Receptor Update of EU standards Update of national standards Preparatory work at IMO level +/- 22.500 € +/- 22.500 € Assessment costs National administrations (28 Member States ) +/- 14.400 € +/- 162.000 € Assessment costs Commission +/- 24.300 € n.a. Transposition costs Idem Idem Other costs Increased risks of accidents and incidents No uniform implementation (market inefficiency) Total cost per update 61.000 € + transposition costs per Member State 185.000 € + transposition costs per Member State + “Other costs” Source: Tractebel, 2015

6.2Ship life cycle costs 80.Regulatory costs are only a part of the total construction and operational cost of a ship. In order to evaluate whether differences in regulatory costs for steel and non-steel ships are relevant for investors when making a choice between ordering a steel or a non-steel ship, it is necessary to place the regulatory costs in perspective with the life cycle cost of these ships. 81.The cost structure for a generic maritime cycle can be broken down as follows: Ship Acquisition Cost (CAPEX) such as Hull, Equipment, Machinery, Profit Margin, Labour, Extras. Ship Operation Costs (OPEX) such as Direct Operation (including Crew, Insurance, Supplies, Admin, Docking), Periodic Maintenance, Voyage (including Fuel, Tolls, Docking), Capital, Handling of Cargo, Ship Scrap Value. 82.Each of these high level costs entries can be further broken down in more detailed elements which mostly depend on the business model that the companies select for their business. In general terms the selection of the various possible options of basic ship dimensions, structure, type of equipment, number of crew, type of the service (including speed, turnaround time etc.) are the subject of a complex process which leads to a multi-criteria analysis aiming to maximize (or minimize) certain functions modelling the business. As a result, the capital and operational costs for all types of ships can range from EUR several millions to tens of millions (and in some cases up to hundreds). 83.It is also worth noting that the major entry in the operational costs is constituted by the costs for fuel, which out-weighs all the others, followed by crew and docking. 84.As regards the influence of regulatory costs related to the safety standards, a comparative analysis has been carried out for navigation, construction and stability, fire safety measures and life-saving appliances (LSA) requirements. Corresponding standards under the Directive 2009/45/EC and national legislation have been compared, to find out whether regulatory costs affect the choice between the construction and operation of a steel ship and a non-steel ship (i.e. aluminium and composite material such as glass-reinforced plastic). 85.The comparison that has been carried out for the reference countries provides a good insight into the differences between EU requirements for steel and assimilated ships and national requirements for non-steel ships. However, it should be kept in mind that only some of these could have been quantified and monetised in a reliable and proportionate manner. 86.For the one-off compliance costs for fire safety measures and LSA, the national legislation tend to be less stringent so there is a cost reduction for non-steel ships that do not fall under the Directive compared with steel ships. For the one-off compliance cost with regard to ship construction the differences are more limited (national legislation is as stringent as or is only slightly less stringent than Directive 2009/45/EC).



Table 9: Example of comparison of costs for life-saving appliances Compliance costs for life-saving appliances Small ship: class B Small ship: class C or D Large ship: class B Large ship: class C or D Directive 2009/45/EC 80.000€ 80.000€ 139.000€ 139.000€ National legislation for equivalent classes (average*) 44.000€ 22.000€ 93.000€ 70.000€ Difference 36.000€ 58.000€ 46.000€ 69.000€ Source: Tractebel, 2015 * Average for national legislation of France, Spain, Italy and the United Kingdom (Greece not included) 87.When compared to the life-cycle cost of a domestic passenger ship , the difference in costs between building a ship according to a national legislation rather than to the standards of the EU Directive is negligible. Therefore it can be concluded that the impact of Directive 2009/45/EC on the life cycle cost, compared with national legislation is very limited. The choice between ordering, building and operating a ship in steel or other material is not significantly affected by the legislation in place and is primarily driven by the business model of the companies involved . 6.3Market of domestic passenger ships 6.3.1The EU domestic passenger fleet

88.According to the latest available data from Eurostat, about 120 million passengers were transported by domestic passenger ships at EU waters in 2012. The peak was achieved in 2008 with 140 million passengers and since then the tendency has decreased. 89.The passenger ship safety market can be segmented in different ways: Ships falling inside/outside the scope of EU passenger ship safety legislation; The type of ship (i.e. passenger ship, ro-ro passenger ship, high speed craft) and activity (i.e. regular or seasonal); The building material (steel, aluminium, composite or wood); The size of ship (>= or < 24m in length ); and The class of ship (according to sea areas A, B, C or D). 90.The EU domestic passenger fleet includes ships both within the scope of EU Directive 2009/45/EC and ships out of the scope. The so called "Directive" ships account for around 29% (922 passenger ships) in terms of number of ships, but above 60% of the total EU passenger capacity (around 380.000 passengers), meaning that the largest ships carrying the most passengers are certified according to the Directive: Table 3: EU passenger capacity and ship material Source: EU Member States, EMSA, 2014 91.In the second group, we find ships outside the scope of EU Directive 2009/45/EC due to the following main reasons: Existing ships of less than 24m: These ships (built before July 1998) account for around 105 ships . Area of operation: The ships operating exclusively in port areas as defined by Member States are out of the scope of the Directive. Around 900 ships are in this situation. Construction material: The Directive applies to ships built of steel or equivalent material. Therefore, out of the ships navigating in the sea areas included in the scope of the Directive, a large proportion (71%) is not certified according to it due to the construction material (aluminium, composite and wood). 92.In terms of type of activity, there is a clear seasonality in the traffic where practically 70% of the passengers are transported during the summer period (i.e. second and third quarter of the year) and 30% in the winter period. This means that the main concentration of the activity is in the period where good weather conditions are more frequent and where the proportion of daylight and good visibility conditions is higher. 93.About 50% of the domestic passenger ships under Directive 2009/45/EC are ro-ro passenger ships, representing about 70% of the passenger capacity. These ro-ro passenger ships generally provide regular services . The distribution of ro-ro passenger ships per Classes (i.e. sea areas) is described in the following table. Table 4: Ro-ro passenger ships under Directive 2009/45/EC

No. Ships Passenger Capacity % of Class Category % of Passenger Capacity Class A 66 88,738 96% 96% Class B 96 62,727 57% 78% Class C 107 46,004 41% 56% Class D 144 48,428 53% 66% HSC 39 22,830 26% 39% TOTAL 452 268,727 49% 69% Source: EU Member States, EMSA, 2014 94.In terms of geographical distribution, 80% of the traffic and 75% of the fleet is concentrated in the Mediterranean basin (only 45% certified under the Directive). The Channel and North Sea area and the Baltic Sea share the rest of the passenger traffic with 10% each approximately. Whereas the traffic in the Mediterranean area presents a high seasonality with high peaks in the summer period, the traffic in the Northern European area presents a more regular pattern throughout the year. 95.Two Member States, Italy and Greece, possess 55% of the EU domestic passenger traffic. In Northern Europe the UK, Denmark and Germany are the States with the highest traffic. 96.In terms of turnover, it is more difficult to provide an accurate figure as the aggregated figures for domestic fleet only are not readily available. Only an approximation was made by extrapolating data available from 2 shipowners providing a result of an annual turnover of EUR 6.000 million . Another estimate is available from the recent EMSA 3 study , indicating a turnover of EUR 50.000 (about EUR 45.000) per passenger/year for ships with more than 80m and 1.000GT. Taking this value and extrapolating to small ships with proportionate lower values, the turnover would be around EUR 20.000 million. Therefore, with the data available, the best approximation that can be made to the market value of the domestic passenger ships in the EU would be between EUR 6 and EUR 20 billion of annual turnover. 97.Some 361 ship owners have ships under Directive 2009/45/EC. It is worth noting that most of these ship owners (72%) only own one domestic passenger ship. Greece (with about 100 ship owners) is the Member State that has by far the largest number of ship owners. The employment created by these ship owners was estimated in 24.014 FTEs . 98.With regard to the size of the ships, as already indicated above, the largest ships are certified according to the Directive: 92% of the 922 passenger ships covered at present by Directive are ships of >= 24m length. On the other hand, the proportion of passenger ships out of the scope of the Directive due to the construction material of > 24m length is approximately 16%. 99.Figure below shows the distribution of the ships that fall in the scope of the Directive 2009/45/EC per Sea Area both in terms of passenger capacity and number of ships. As expected, Class A ships that account only for 7% of the total in number of ships carry 24% of the passenger capacity. Class C&D ships that account for 58% of the ships have a combined capacity of 40% of the total. Table 5: Number of Directive ships and passenger capacity per sea areas Source: EU Member States, EMSA, 2014 6.3.2EU internal market 100.The main cross-border transactions identified include the changes of flag, passenger ships operating in Member States other than the state of registry and the passenger ships built in one Member State and operated in another. 101.The “changes of flag” indicator reflects the (lack of) internal barriers in changing the state of registry where a domestic passenger ship operates. A ship certified according to the Directive should be accepted in another EU State without requests for modification. So far, only three Member States (Croatia, Ireland and the UK) have refused to recognise Directive 2009/45/EC certificates issued by another Member States. However, this has not been a systematic refusal but rather on a case-by-case basis relating to specific circumstances of individual ships and the exemptions that could apply thereto. 102.In case the ship is not certified according to the Directive, mutual recognition should, in principle, apply. In practice, however, every ship is close to being a prototype, i.e. built for a specific purpose according to technical specifications determined by its future owner. In the absence of harmonised safety standards, the ship needs to be therefore carefully checked against relevant national standards and in case of differences in safety requirements, the ship would need to be modified and re-certified – with the associated additional costs that this would imply. In addition, the shipowner is likely to lose profit due to the unavoidable delays that such a check and modification would take. 103.Accordingly, it can be assumed that the common standards of Directive 2009/45/EC facilitate the cross-border movement of ships. Data available demonstrates that after the entry into force of the Directive, change of flag (intra EU Member States), increased by 400% (19 changes of flag in the period 1979-1998, and 100 in the period 1998-2014). While acknowledging that there could be other reasons for this increase , the entry into force of the predecessor of Directive 2009/45/EC in 1998 certainly contributed in a positive way to this indicator: Figure 2: Flag changes of Directive passenger ships before and after 1998

Source: EMSA based on MARINFO, 2015 104.It must also be considered that a ship is a multi-million investment which takes years to pay off and the value of a ship is still relevant also for an ageing fleet (average age of the domestic passenger fleet is 27 years) taking into account that in shipping discount rates are calculated on life cycle of 25 years). Therefore, 100 ships flag changes (slightly more than 10% of the EU fleet) in 16 years of the Directive’s existence represent a significant value. 105.It is very important to note that practically no flag change has been registered for ships of less than 24m in length under the Directive (only 1 so far). Despite that there is nothing to stop such ships from changing the flag, there appears to be no appetite to do so for this kind of ships: they are operated in the same Member State until the end of their operational life. 106.The information on flag changes of ships falling outside the scope of the Directive is not available. These ships are in general small (<24m in length) and commercial databases do not in general cover ships of this size. 107.With regard to the second indicator, number of ships operating domestically in a State different from their flag (i.e. cabotage), there are only 11 ships in this situation in the EU. Although there is no restriction in the Member State of the flag that a ship must fly, it may be more attractive for an operator to choose the same flag as the State in which it operates . 108.And finally, as a third indicator, ship-building. The number of shipyards that have built domestic passenger ships under Directive 2009/45/EC is highest in Norway - followed by Germany, Italy and Greece. Between 1999-2006, there has been a slight increase of new orders of domestic passenger ships compared to the previous period, with new orders increase of 28%. After that period, the economic crisis had an impact on the ship building market: 75 less ships were built in the 7 year period between 2007 and 2014 compared to the preceding 7 years. 109.Ship operators can choose to buy ships in any of the Member States or third countries with ship-building industry, in function of their own criteria, e.g. where the expertise and price are best for the type of ships they want to buy. As regards the ship building market for ships falling within the scope of Directive 2009/45/EC, about 20% of the passenger ships have been built in another Member State than that where it operates and 13% are imported from outside Europe. 110.As regards ships outside the scope of the Directive, statistics is not available due to the previously mentioned reasons (i.e. small size ships not included in commercial databases). However, on the basis of interviews with shipyards, it is not clear whether harmonised standard rules have any (significant) impact on the construction costs. As the analysis has shown, regulatory costs represent a very limited fraction compared to the total construction, operation and maintenance costs. 111.On the other hand, for example shipyards in Portugal and Denmark consider that a comprehensive (common) legislative framework with the same set of (clear and sufficiently detailed) rules/standards at European level for non-Directive ships would be positive for an internal market . 6.4Safety issues and accidents 112.The European Marine Casualty Information Platform (EMCIP), the EU database on maritime accidents established by Directive 2009/18/EC and operated on behalf of the Commission by EMSA, categorises accidents in four categories according to the severity classification occurrence established by the IMO: very serious, serious, less serious and marine incidents. It is however important to note that EMCIP database was established only recently; the number of years for which data is available in EMCIP is therefore still rather limited and in order to have a more solid comparison more years of EMCIP statistics would be needed. Furthermore, given the novelty of the system, accidents and incidents (in particular less serious accidents and incidents) may have been under-reported in the first years of its operation, namely 2011 and 2012. 113.408 accidents in total have been registered for the domestic passenger ships falling under Directive 2009/45/EC during the last 4 years. 223 vessels were concerned: this represents 24% of the domestic passenger ships falling under Directive 2009/45/EC. It should be also noted that only 1 out of the 74 ships with a length <24m certified under the Directive had an accident in the same period. 114.With regard to fatalities, 3 out of 408 accidents resulted in fatalities: in total 4 fatalities (one passenger and three crew-members) have been recorded in the past 4 years. In total 179 injured persons are recorded (of which 48 are passengers) in 154 accidents over the same period. 115.Loss of control (propulsion, or electrical, or directional), grounding/stranding, contact, collision, or a combination of these factors are the main types of causes of the occurring accidents. About 80% of the accidents involve ro-ro passenger ships, with Class B ro-ro passenger ships the ones with the highest accident frequency: 36% of the total number of accidents happened on these ships (whereas they represent 10% of the fleet). 116.About 30% of the accidents are located in the Mediterranean Sea, around 50% in the Atlantic Coast and Channel and 20% in the Baltic Sea. Despite the fact that passenger traffic is considerably higher in the Mediterranean, the number of accidents is lower. This could be attributed to the less severe weather conditions in the south of Europe. 117.With regard to small domestic passenger ships outside the scope of the Directive (i.e. below 24 m in length), 252 accidents are recorded in EMCIP. For this group of ships, 139 injured people (93 passengers) and 5 fatalities (all of them in occupational accidents) have been recorded. This means approximately 2 fatalities (all occupational) every 100 accidents and 1 person injured every 2 accidents. Comparing with the fleet certified according to the Directive, the frequency of accidents is lower, the average number of injured people per accident is similar and the number of fatalities per accident is higher, although all of them are related to occupational accidents and refer to a relatively small period of time. 118.With regard to ships above 24m outside the scope of the Directive, the following records are available: For aluminium ships, 5 accidents are recorded involving 4 ships (3% of the aluminium fleet >24m) with 5 injured people (all of them in occupational accidents).

For composite ships, 12 accidents are recorded involving 8 ships (7% of the composite fleet >24m) with 3 injured people (1 of them in occupational accidents). For wooden ships, 13 accidents are recorded involving 10 ships (7% of the wood fleet >24m) with 2 injured people (both in occupational accidents). All this is summarised in the table below: Table 6: Accidents of EU domestic passenger ships Source: EMSA on the basis of EMCIP data, 2015 119.As can be seen, while the number and percentage of ships with accidents is much lower for ships outside the scope of the Directive, the number of injured and fatalities is similar, meaning that the consequences of the accidents are worse. However, it is worth mentioning that the maximum length of the ships above 24m for the ships certified outside the scope of the Directive is around 38m whereas for the ships certified under the Directive the maximum length is above 200m and the average around 75m. Therefore, the ships outside of the Directive are considerably smaller. These ships are usually outside the scope of the ISM code and therefore it is very likely that only the accidents with severe consequences are reported and recorded leaving the less severe ones unreported. 120.It is also remarkable that ships operating in the port areas are the ones affecting negatively in a significant way the statistics for the non-Directive ships. The fatalities in these ships are mainly related to disembarkment of people from a ship to a port launch, not directly related to the safety standards of the Directive. Furthermore, as shown in annex 3, the percentage of serious/very serious accidents in the domestic passenger fleet is lower than the percentage for the whole passenger fleet (domestic + international) recorded at EMCIP. This seems to imply that the accidents for domestic ships are in general less severe than for international passenger ships. 121.Available data for other states, such as Japan, Canada, Australia and the USA do not differentiate in terms of domestic passenger ships. Only Japan has comparable data from 1989 to 2004. The statistics show the number of marine accidents involving domestic passenger ships vs number of passengers per kilometre. However, as the data is only accessible in a graphic format and without a proper scale, the real data of passenger per kilometre cannot be extracted. The number of fatalities is aggregated for domestic cargo, passenger and tankers, and therefore it is not possible to attribute the exact number of fatalities to domestic passenger ships. This source also simply attributes 86% of the accidents to human factor and the remaining 16% to “unavoidable circumstances, etc.” 122.Considering that the number of passengers transported in the same period is about 420 million, and taking into account the average number of hours that a passenger is on board a ship, the individual risk per passenger hour is approximately between 6.75E-9 and 10.8E-9, which is similar or lower when compared to other transport modes (per passenger hour): 32E-9 in passenger car, 6E-9 for bus/coach, 10E-9 for rail, 45E-9 for air and between 16E-9 and 46E-9 for international passenger ships. With regard to risk per km, the air mode is however considerably ‘safer’ due to the higher speed/distances travelled achieved. 123.Other risk measurements are related to the accident frequency and potential loss of lives (PLL). Comparisons with the international passenger fleet show that although the frequency of accidents for the EU domestic fleet is higher than the international fleet, the consequences of accidents are less intense in terms of PLL (even with the conservative approach on injured people). This is consistent with the results of the direct comparison on severity of accidents using EMCIP data. The accident frequency can be higher considering that the ships of the domestic fleet are trading in general closer to shore than the international fleet. In the coastal areas the traffic is more intense and there are more shallow waters where grounding can occur. 6.5Implementation of the EU passenger ship safety legislation: Issues 124.For practical reasons, and reasons of clarity, the key implementation issues analysed in this section are presented Directive by Directive. Other, less substantial issues are described in annex 4. Having said that, the links and relations between the Directives are explored where relevant. This should ease the understanding of requirements and their evaluation against the specific objectives set in each of the Directives under the fitness check mandate. The overall conclusions and recommendations follow in chapters 8 and 9. 6.5.1Directive 2009/45/EC Objectives and their relevance The main objectives of this Directive are: 1.to introduce a uniform level of safety of life and property on new and existing passenger ships and high-speed passenger craft, when both categories of ships and craft are engaged on domestic voyages, and

2.to lay down procedures for negotiation at international level with a view to a harmonisation of the rules for passenger ships engaged on international voyages. 125.Both objectives remain highly relevant. Persons travelling on passenger ships and high speed passenger craft on domestic voyages throughout the EU have the right to expect and to rely on an appropriate level of safety on board. At the same time, harmonised safety standards allow to remove barriers to trade in the intra-EU transport of passengers. 126.The Directive has been largely implemented and has brought about a common high safety level across the EU (namely vis-à-vis international passenger transport) and important internal market benefits . On the other hand, it has also given rise to a number of questions as regards the clarity and adequacy of some of its definitions, scope and procedures. With the exception of stakeholders arguing against the need for common safety standards in the EU , the key principles and added value of the Directive have not been questioned. 127.More details on the procedures, i.e. update of the technical Annex and the exemption/equivalencies, as well as unclear definitions related to various types of ships (ranging from high speed craft to offshore service vessels and traditional vessels) can be found in annex 4. 128.Similarly for the second objective, it remains of key importance to strive for an adequate safety level on international voyages and, thereby, minimise to the extent possible a need for additional EU safety standards. The principles and procedures for negotiation at international level, as regards the positions to be taken on behalf of the EU bodies set up by international agreements, have been more generally defined in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Their application to IMO coordination specifically is currently being reviewed by the Commission together with Member States. This review also includes the so-called informal coordination process based on technical coordination concerning issues still in the preparatory phase at the IMO and those that will not have an effect on EU legislation. 129.As explained in chapter 6.3, the European passenger ship fleet accounts for vessels trading in sea areas A, B, C and D . Such vessels are built in four different materials: (1) steel, (2) aluminium, (3) composite and (4) wood. It is also important to note that HSC operating domestically are included in the scope of the Directive independently of the construction material. 130.Domestic passenger steel built ships fall under the scope of the Directive 2009/45/EC. Steel built ships are all included in the fleet of 922 ships which carry a Directive (or HSC) certificate. Pure steel ships accounts for 742 of this fleet (including one built in iron). Table 10: Domestic passenger steel built ships < 24 m >= 24 m Total N. of ships 60 682 742 % N. of ships 8% 92% 100% Passenger capacity 6,893 320,555 327,448 % Passenger capacity 2% 98% 100% Source: EU Member States, EMSA, 2014 6.5.1.1Uneven implementation: Aluminium built ships 131.Aluminium built ships in principle fall under the scope of the Directive 2009/45/EC. Aluminium, although it is a metal, is less resistant to fire than steel (i.e. it loses structural integrity at lower temperatures than steel) and needs to be therefore additionally insulated in order to become fire resistant. This obviously necessitates additional investment in comparison to steel – but brings another, over the life time of a ship more substantial, benefit in operating a lighter, more fuel efficient and corrosion resistant ship . 132.Aluminium is the only material that is explicitly mentioned in the Directive as being equivalent to steel (i.e. not by itself but due to insulation provided): “Where the words ‘steel or other equivalent material’ occur, ‘equivalent material’ means any non-combustible material which, by itself or due to insulation provided, has structural and integrity properties equivalent to steel at the end of the applicable exposure to the standard fire test (e.g. aluminium alloy with appropriate insulation).” 133.Correspondingly, the Directive (as well as SOLAS) defines the applicable fire insulation standards. It should be noted that these standards are designed for aluminium and cannot be applied to other, non-metallic materials (such as composite). 134.The large majority of Member States (16) consider ships made of aluminium equivalent to steel and consequently within the scope of Directive (and certified accordingly). However, there are Member States (notably France) that do not apply the Directive in the same manner and do not consider aluminium equivalent to steel. In its reply to the targeted consultation, France indicated that it does not consider the Directive´s (and SOLAS) aluminium fire insulation standards realistic . Such difference in interpretation, at least for the ships above 24 m in length, seems to be primarily related to the definition of spaces which should be additionally fire insulated. 135.Total passenger capacity for the aluminium built ships fleet is overall greater than 100.000 passengers, with about 80% of capacity concentrated in vessels above 24 m. In terms of number of ship (559 in total), 50% are above 24m and 50% below 24 m. 136.EU passenger ships, made of aluminium and not covered by the Directive, represent 9% of the overall EU domestic fleet and 70% are small ships (<24m). France has by far the largest share in terms of number of ships (60%) and about 30% of the passenger capacity, which is distributed both in European continental waters and in overseas territories. The table below presents the aluminium built ships for which the Member States have not issued a Directive 2009/45/EC certificate (409 vessels in total). Table 11: Domestic passenger aluminium built ships outside the Directive carrying national certificate (i.e. excluding HSC )

< 24 m >= 24 m Totals N. of ships 280 129 409 % N. of ships 18 82 100 Passenger capacity 20,665 31,337 52,002 % Passenger capacity 40 60 100 Source: EU Member States, EMSA, 2014 137.In comparison, aluminium built ships for which the Member States have issued a Directive 2009/45/EC certificate account for 150 vessels out of which nearly 80% holds a HSC certificates (i.e. different safety standards apply). Italy has the largest share of these vessels, followed by Spain and Greece. It is worth noting that all vessels are above 24 m in length . 138.This leads to an uneven situation where one part of the fleet is certified under the Directive while another part of the same fleet is not (albeit a bigger one). Around 30 aluminium built non-HSC passenger ships above 24 m in length have been certified according to the Directive, while another 129 have not. This illustrates the scope for enhancing the effectiveness of the Directive in ensuring a common safety level and a level playing field. 6.5.1.2Outside scope: Composite and wood built ships 139.Composite built ships are a relevant category in the fleet. They are reported by the Member States with several material denominations, such as composite, GRP, glass/epoxy or plastic which, however, all fall under the composite material classification. Composite material (similarly to aluminium) is being increasingly used as an alternative, lighter and more fuel efficient option to steel, albeit primarily for smaller ships and high-speed craft. 140.All the composite built vessels (15) certified under the Directive 2009/45/EC are HSC, 12 of them are Norwegian with a combined passenger capacity of 3500. Therefore the table analysis is carried out only with regard to composite built ships which do not fall under the Directive 2009/45/EC.



Table 12: Domestic passenger composite built ships outside the Directive < 24 m >= 24 m Totals N. of ships 589 105 694 % N. of ships 85 15 100 Passenger capacity 52,837 19,831 72,668 % Passenger capacity 73 27 100 Source: EU Member States, EMSA, 2014 141.All Member States consider composite materials as not equivalent to steel . Some Member States, notably DK and SE, highlighted a possible benefit of developing harmonised standards for these ships at EU level. 142.However, it should be noted that non-metallic materials are combustible and besides different structural characteristics , they have considerably different fire resistance behaviour from both steel and aluminium. Consequently, such materials would necessitate a different set of safety standards regarding the structural fire protection, the adaptation thereto of the ventilation systems and the penetrations through bulkheads. This is one of the reasons why, at international level, the standards for composite ships are being developed very slowly. Currently, it is not possible to build an international passenger ship entirely in composite material unless it is a HSC. 143.At EU level, there are already 694 composite built passenger ships in operation (15% of them >=24m in length). These ships were built according to existing national standards. Earlier findings concluded that national legislation in some Member States is less stringent as regards fire safety than the current Directive – fire insulation requirements being the key difference in safety provisions concerning combustible materials such as composite. 144.Further consultation with national administrations and technical assessment would be therefore needed to understand the reasons behind the lower level of fire-insulation required for these ships , as well as the need for and the feasibility of developing common standards at EU level. 145.Wood built ships account for around 36% of the total fleet in terms of number of vessels, however in terms of passenger capacity the percentage falls to 18% of the total share. Table below characterises the wood built fleet:



Table 13: Domestic passenger wood built ships outside the Directive

< 24 m >= 24 m Totals N. of Ships 1014 136 1150 % N. of Ships 88 12 100 Pax Capacity 77,004 31,909 108,913 % Pax Capacity 71 29 100 Source: EU Member States, EMSA, 2014 146.All Member States consider wood as not equivalent to steel. Unlike for the composite products, none of the Member States has so far raised a need for harmonising the corresponding EU safety standards. However, in its reply to the questionnaire, Italy (with the largest wood built fleet) considered necessary to close the gap between ships covered by Directive 2009/45/EC and ships built from other materials. Potential internal market benefits could be also argued. In addition, similarly to composite built ships, further consultation with national administrations and technical assessment as regards the adequacy of existing fire insulation standards would be needed. 6.5.1.3Inadequate scope: Ships of less than 24m in length 147.The limit between small and large ships is set at 24 m in length. It is based on the IMO International Convention on Load Lines (ICLL) that remains considered the most appropriate in defining commonly applicable technical safety standards for passenger ships . The ICLL establishes, amongst other things, the minimum freeboard (buoyancy reserve) that a ship must have, which is a key safety issue. The reserve of buoyancy and the other ICLL-related parameters for these ships are determined by flag administrations taking into account different considerations, including the prevailing conditions in the area where the ship will operate. 148.Currently, small ships are only partially covered by the Directive – several key safety aspects have not been harmonised. This reflects the fact that these ships are more sensitive to local operational conditions especially in view of the limited freeboard. Member States are therefore in a better position to assess the limitations of navigation for these ships in terms of distance to coast or port and weather conditions. The main regulations that do not apply to new ships of less than 24m are: (a) intact stability – a key safety element; (b) watertight doors; and (c) means of escape. 149.The Directive also gives Member States the flexibility to apply national rules when they find the harmonised standards for small ships impracticable and/or unreasonable. This is the case for requirements related to double bottom, bilge pumps, communication means with bridge, engineer’s alarm, and all the requirements related to unattended machinery spaces. The assessment of the practicability and/or reasonability is left to the discretion of the administration. 150.For example, while one Member State may conclude that a double bottom is necessary, another one may conclude the contrary. This will depend on the type of service that the ship is going to provide, in which area and in which time of the year. 151.In any case, Member States must develop and maintain a number of regulations related to ships of less than 24m. This situation does not only create a double layer of legislation for these ships, it also puts into question the need for, and value added of, keeping the ships below 24 m in length within the scope of the Directive. Moreover, given that small ships are built mainly from materials other than steel, the vast majority (96%) of the fleet is currently not covered by the harmonised EU safety standards. This implies that most of vessels below 24 m are already certified under national legislation. 152.Some Member States (e.g. Denmark, Portugal, Sweden, Croatia) highlighted that for vessels below 24m in length it could be considered to develop a Guideline or Code for small vessels containing only high level requirements as part of a Goal Based Standard framework. It should be noted that in the past, the Commission made an attempt to develop a Small Craft Code in cooperation with Member States. For the duration of the fitness check, this process has been put on hold. 153.More generally, it became obvious that the absolute majority of Member States consider that all ships below 24 m should be treated in the same manner -irrespectively of the material from which they are built. It became also clear that the wide range of services that these vessels are built for (daily or overnight passages, touristic daily cruising, calling to ports with specific constrains such as draft and length or with specific infrastructures, etc.) produces a very broad range of designs and technical solutions which make identifying a common set of detailed rules fitting such a variety of services for smaller vessels extremely challenging. 154.In terms of accidents, EMCIP shows that only 1 out of the 72 ships with a length of less than 24m certified under the Directive had an accident in the last 4 years. On the other hand, it also shows 252 accidents for the ships <24m certified according to national rules (in total ca. 1880) with 5 fatalities (all of them in occupational accidents) and 139 injured (being 93 passengers). 155.Although these numbers appear to be worse for the ships certified according to national rules, it must be noted that they are comparable with the levels seen on ships certified according to the Directive of more than 24m. Rather than concluding that the number of accidents is too high for national ships of less than 24m, it would seem that the accidents has so far been exceptionally low for ships of less than 24m certified in the Directive (risk is practically 0 with a pure theoretical calculation). 156.From an internal market perspective, the added value of the Directive has been very limited. Unlike for the bigger ships, only 1 out of 72 small ships certified under the Directive changed flag and only 4 ships have been built in a Member State different from the one where they operate. It can be also highlighted that small non-steel ships, like small steel ships, are primarily operated by SMEs and microenterprises. 6.5.1.4Complex definition of sea areas for non-HSC 157.The Directive classifies the passenger ships in four different classes according to certain parameters of the sea areas where they can operate, mainly: (1) significant wave height AND (2) distance to coast where shipwrecked persons can land AND

(3) distance to a place of refuge. 158.The concept behind this classification is that the limitation in one or more of these parameters modifies the risk level to which the ship is subject to and, therefore, the associated rules for each ship class should be adapted in order to be proportionate to the risk level of the sea area. 159.In this respect, Class A ships, which do not have any limitation with regard to the sea area where they can operate, have different safety requirements to Class B ships, with sea area of operation limited in terms of distance to coast (20 miles). In the same way, the sea area where Class C ships can operate has, in addition to a distance to coast limit (5 miles), a limit of the significant wave height (2.5m) and a limit in the distance to a place of refuge (15 miles). Similarly for Class D ships where the sea area is limited by distance to coast (3 miles), significant wave height (1.5m) and distance to a place of refuge (6 miles). 160.All these parameters mean that the definition of the sea areas is rather complex, especially for Classes C and D. Member States have to calculate the significant wave height for each sea area, then cross check with the maximum allowed distance to coast where shipwrecked persons can land and finally cross-check again with the distance to a place of refuge. In addition, it is possible to have different significant wave height in winter and summer, adding even more complexity to the definition. 161.Based on the replies in the questionnaire, the large majority of Member States implement and define the sea areas on the basis of 2 parameters only: distance to coast and significant wave height. At this moment, it is not possible to fully verify the underlying parameters, given that the published sea areas on national websites (as required by the Directive) are not presented in the same format (e.g. maps, coordinates) and do not have the corresponding significant wave height attached. Furthermore, the links to the corresponding national website are not easily retrievable. 162.It should be noted that the Greek authorities indicated that due to the geographical morphology of their coastline, including the archipelagic island system, establishing points that encompass sea areas is inappropriate and impossible. Instead, Greece identified and published more than 3000 sea routes, based on the point of departure and arrival corresponding to the specific route. Spain indicated that the decision on the sea areas C and D is left to the harbour master. Further consultation with national experts would be needed to discuss these reasons in more depth. 163.In the consultation , Member States indicated that although there is room for simplification and clarification in the definition of sea areas, the practical point of view must also be considered. The sea areas are already defined and implemented and a change in the definitions may create a double regime because the old definitions of sea areas would have to be maintained for ships already in operation whereas there would be a need to define from scratch new sea areas for new-built ships. This may imply negative consequences such as a co-existence of two different sea areas definition for a long period (probably more than 20 years considering the life-cycle of a ship), unnecessary administrative burden and confusion for operators. 164.Accordingly, the identified potential for simplification is limited to the elements that would not influence the drawing of new sea areas for Member States but would eliminate only redundant or overlapping criteria. Some of the parameters can be found in more detail in annex 4. 6.5.1.5Difference in safety standards between Class C and D ships 165.The current differences in standards with regard to Class C and D are limited to the functioning of machinery, bow height, access to spaces below from the ro-ro deck to spaces below the bulkhead deck, emergency generators, distress hand flares, qualification personnel for distress and safety radio communication purposes. 166.The evaluation and consultation process has brought about important findings regarding the differences between the safety standards between Class C and D ships. Experts have identified that a number of these differences are not necessary justified from the safety perspective given that the underlying risks are very similar, if not the same. In fact the differences in standards between these two classes in the Directive are not significant except the one related to the minimum bow height. 167.However, no agreement has been reached as to which standards should apply: Whereas some Member States advocate relaxing Class C to make it equivalent to Class D, others are in favour of the opposite. Further assessment of the adequacy of differences in safety requirements between Class C and D ships is therefore needed. 6.5.2Directive 2003/25/EC Objectives and their relevance 168.The main objectives of this Directive, that applies to all ro-ro passenger ships operating to or from a port of a Member State on a regular service, regardless of their flag, is: To improve the survivability of this type of vessels in case of collision damage, and to provide thereby a high level of safety for the passengers and the crew. 169.This objective is achieved mainly by laying down a uniform level of specific stability requirements for ro-ro passenger ships. It remains relevant as long as the corresponding safety level determined at international level is not proved to be equivalent or superior.

Inconsistency in regulatory approach and safety gap 170.General stability requirements for ro-ro passenger ships in damaged condition were established at international level by the 1990 update of the International Convention on the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS 90). In the aftermath of the Estonia accident in September 1994, eight northern European countries, including seven EU Member States, agreed in Stockholm on 28 February 1996 to introduce a higher stability standard for ro-ro passenger ships (Stockholm Agreement). On this basis, Directive 2003/25/EC was laid down and entered into force. 171.The implementation of Directive 2003/25/EC resulted in common safety standards for the calculation of the effect of water on deck on damage stability for ro-ro passenger ships. According to Member States replies to the questionnaire, 20 ships are not yet in compliance with Art. 6, 8 and 9 of this Directive (the transition period expires on 1 October 2015). The total number of ships flying a third country flag calling in an EU port, certified according to the Directive, can be estimated at around 220 per year. 172.Since the Directive 2003/25/EC came into force, the SOLAS Convention has gone through several substantial amendments in the area of damage stability. Through these amendments a probabilistic damage stability framework has been developed and SOLAS Convention amended accordingly (SOLAS 2009, applicable as of 1 January 2009). These amendments were designed to achieve the same, but not higher, safety level as the original SOLAS 90 (deterministic framework). 173.The coexistence of Directives 2003/25/EC and SOLAS 2009 makes the passenger ship safety legislation complex and (partly) based on different regulatory approaches; industry has to assess the ship designs against both the probabilistic SOLAS 2009 requirements and the deterministic SOLAS 90 + Stockholm Agreement. However, it has not yet been demonstrated that the SOLAS 2009 approach has the same level of safety as SOLAS 90 + Stockholm Agreement (Directive 2003/25). 174.Several EU funded studies have addressed this issue; in particular the EMSA 2 project delivered several recommendations to improve the SOLAS Regulations concerning damage stability with respect to the water on deck. Some of these recommendations were brought to the attention of the IMO (but not yet adopted). The EMSA 3 project, although not directly addressing the issue of water on deck, is about to deliver further SOLAS amendments proposals that could further increase the damage stability requirements. Decisions at IMO level are expected in 2016. Results of the two studies and the corresponding SOLAS amendments should be then considered in combination and compared against the safety level determined by the Directive 2003/25/EC. 175.During consultation, a large majority of Member States agreed that the safety requirements of this Directive are superior to the amended SOLAS 2009 and deliver an increased safety level for ro-ro passenger ships with respect to the water on deck occurrence in a damage situation. However, others such as Germany, considers that the SOLAS 2009 as amended delivers already an equivalent safety level as the combined application of the SOLAS 90 plus the Directive 2003/25/EC requirements. 6.5.3Directive 1999/35/EC Objectives and their relevance 176.The first objective of this Directive is to lay down a specific system of mandatory surveys which will provide a greater assurance of safe operation or regular ro-ro ferries and high speed passenger craft services to or from ports of the Member States of the Union. 177.This objective, related to providing a greater assurance of safe operation, remains relevant given the specificities and higher vulnerability of ro-ro ferries and high speed passenger craft on regular service compared to passenger ships without ro-ro capacity (i.e. conventional passenger ships). More concretely, ro-ro ferries and HSC have particular design characteristics; these include an undivided vehicle deck – giving rise to stability and fire vulnerabilities, very intense activity (with tight schedules), the risks of cargo shift, water-tightness issues with external ramps, hoistable ramps and wear & tear. Therefore, for this type of ships, it is essential that all the safety elements on the ship intended to decrease the above-mentioned risks are in adequate continuous operating conditions. 178.Moreover, in relation to the domestic fleet, while vessels with ro-ro capacity (ferries and HSC) represent 49% of the fleet, they account for 80% of accidents. During the consultation, national experts confirmed that a special inspection regime for these vessels remains necessary. 179.The results of the Directive 1999/35/EC surveys are reported in the EU database (as part of THETIS), managed by EMSA. The inspection reports on individual ships can be accessed at: https://portal.emsa.europa.eu/web/thetis/inspections . 180.Notwithstanding the specificities of Directive 1999/35/EC, the vast majority of Member States (15) combine or replace some of the inspections required under the Directive with either Flag State surveys or port State control inspections. This practice however renders the implementation and enforcement of this Directive somewhat complex, given the different scope of these inspections and regulatory overlaps, namely with the Directive 2009/16/EC on port State control (PSC). In addition, the Directive includes some outdated concepts and definitions as well as unclear requirements (for more details, see annex 4). 181.The second objective provides for the right of Members States to conduct, participate in or cooperate in any investigation of maritime casualties or incidents on these services. The second objective of the Directive is no longer relevant since the entry into force of Directive 2009/18/EC on accident investigation. Overlaps in the inspection regime 182.Directive 1999/35/EC provides for a number of types of inspections; these include an initial verification of documentation one month before the ship starts operation, an initial inspection before the ship starts operation, specific annual survey in a port, an annual in service inspection and other surveys such as those to check that deficiencies have been addressed. 183.The overlaps will be analysed in view of three different group of ships (determined by the type of their voyage origin and destination and whether domestic or international, and thei