COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document Proposal for a Council Recommendation on safety goals and functional requirements for passenger ships below 24 m in length
Date: 2018-05-23
Institutions: Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport, European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, carriage of passengers, maritime safety, safety standard, technical specification, technical standard, vessel

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 23.5.2018  SWD(2018) 238 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document Proposal for a Council Recommendation on safety goals and functional requirements for passenger ships below 24 m in length  {COM(2018) 314 final}  
 
 
Table of Contents 

1.

  Context ............................................................................................................................................ 3 

2.

  Rationale .......................................................................................................................................... 4 

2.1.  Background ..................................................................................................................................... 4 

2.2.  Fitness check results ........................................................................................................................ 4 

2.3.  Objective and legal basis ................................................................................................................. 5 

2.4.  Data collection and stakeholder consultation .................................................................................. 6 

3.

  The EU domestic passenger fleet .................................................................................................... 7 

3.1.  Overview of the fleet according to the material of construction ..................................................... 9 

3.2.  EU internal market ........................................................................................................................ 12 

3.3.  Accident statistics .......................................................................................................................... 15 

4.

  Performance based regulatory approach ....................................................................................... 16 

4.1.  Background ................................................................................................................................... 16 

4.2.  The New Approach ....................................................................................................................... 17 

4.3.  Goal-based standard approach ....................................................................................................... 22 

4.4.  Existing experience with the GBS framework .............................................................................. 23 

5.

  The proposed Small Passenger Ship Guide ................................................................................... 26 

5.1.  Development and main issues ....................................................................................................... 26 

5.2.  Structure ........................................................................................................................................ 28 

5.2.1. 

Tier I: Goals ........................................................................................................................... 29 

5.2.2. 

Tier II: Functional requirements ............................................................................................ 29 

6.

  Next steps ...................................................................................................................................... 30 

Annex  1:  Summary  of  online  consultation  on  safety  goals  and  functional  requirements  for  small 
passenger ships ...................................................................................................................................... 32 

Annex 2: Overview of targeted consultation carried out in the framework of the Passenger Ship Safety 
Expert Group ......................................................................................................................................... 43 

Annex 3: Summary of replies to the questionnaire on the Small Passenger Ship Guide ...................... 47 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1.

Context 

On 20 December 2017, the amendments to Directive 2009/45/EC of the European Parliament 
and of the Council1 entered into force, excluding small passenger ships (i.e. ships below 24 m 
in  length)  made  of  steel  or  an  equivalent  material  from  its  scope.  This  resulted  from  the 
recommendations of the REFIT Fitness Check on EU passenger ship safety legislation2.  

The fitness check concluded that the prescriptive EU approach applicable only to small ships 
falling within the scope of Directive 2009/45/EC failed to bring about a common high safety 
level across the EU and internal market benefits in respect of these smaller vessels. Instead, 
the fitness check recommended a goal based standards framework for small passenger ships 
as the only regulatory approach that would be proportionate and generate EU added value.  

Such  a  goal  based  standard  approach  provides  for  a  regulatory  framework  that  sets  broad 
objectives  and  performance  requirements.  It  can  be  complemented  by  detailed  rules  and 
standards,  developed  and  verified  to  conform  to  the  general  goals  and  performance 
requirements.  

In  recital  8  of  Directive  (EU)  2017/2108  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council3 
amending  Directive  2009/45/EC,  the  co-legislators  invited  the  Commission  to  adopt 
guidelines for small passenger ships as soon as possible, so Member States can take them into 
account  when  determining  their  own  national  safety  standards.  Such  guidelines  should  take 
into  consideration  any  international  agreements  and  conventions  by  the  International 
Maritime  Organization  (IMO),  as  appropriate,  and  should  avoid  introducing  additional 
requirements that go beyond existing international rules. 

This initiative has been included under the Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme 
(REFIT)  in  the  Commission's  Work  Programme  for  2017.  It  demonstrates  that  a  common 
approach to the safety of small passenger ships is feasible. It defines a common benchmark at 
EU level for the safety of small passenger ships that could, if embraced by Member States and 
further  developed,  provide  a  reference  for  passengers  sailing  domestically  on  these  ships  in 
EU waters and facilitate access for EU manufacturers to the wider EU market.  

In view of the novelty of this approach in the area of passenger ship safety and the diversity of 
existing national practices in regulating small ships, its acceptance and uptake by EU Member 
States is key to its success.  

1  

2  
3  

Directive 2009/45/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 on safety rules and 
standards for passenger ships (OJ L 163, 25.6.2009, p. 1–140). 
COM(2015)508. 
Directive  (EU)  2017/2108  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  15  November  2017 
amending  Directive  2009/45/EC  on  safety  rules  and  standards  for  passenger  ships  (OJ  L  315, 
30.11.2017, p. 40–51). 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
2.

Rationale 

2.1.  Background 

Directive  2009/45/EC  is  the  most  extensive  EU  legislative  instrument  covering  passenger 
ships made of steel or equivalent material and high speed craft sailing on domestic voyages 
(i.e. between the ports of the same Member State). Where applicable and feasible, it is based 
on  internationally  agreed  standards,  namely  the  International  Convention  for  the  Safety  of 
Life  At  Sea  (SOLAS),  establishing  detailed  technical  requirements  on  vessel  construction, 
stability, fire protection and life-saving equipment.  

Directive  2009/45/EC  has  brought  about  a  uniform  high  safety  level  across  the  EU  and 
significant  internal  market  benefits.  However,  it  has  failed  to  do  so  regarding  small  ships 
(below 24 meters in length)  for which several key safety aspects have not been harmonised 
(reflecting  the  difficulty  to  apply  the  current  prescriptive  standards  in  a  common  manner  to 
the large variety of small ships and conditions they operate in throughout the EU). It has also 
become clear that the wide range of services that these vessels are built for produces a very 
broad  range  of  designs  and  technical  solutions.  This  has  made  identifying  a  common  set  of 
detailed rules extremely challenging and necessitated a different regulatory approach. 

Such  new  approach,  based  on  performance  rather  than  prescriptive  requirements,  leaves  a 
degree of freedom to adjust for local circumstances where necessary and promotes innovative 
designs – subject to verification that the required safety level is met. It also better reflects the 
wide  variety  of  designs,  materials  and  operation  of  small  passenger  ships,  which  are  more 
sensitive to local operational conditions.   

2.2. 

Fitness check results 

The  REFIT  fitness  check4  showed  that  only  about  60  small  steel  ships  out  of  almost  two 
thousand small ships in total have been certified under Directive 2009/45/EC. This is due to 
the fact that the vast majority of such ships are currently built in materials other than steel (see 
chapter  6  for  more  details).  For  such  ships,  no  common  standards  or  safety  benchmark 
currently exist, either at EU or international level. Every  Member State has therefore put  in 
place  a  different  approach  to  regulating  their  safety  leading  to  differences  in  measures, 
approaches and interpretations. This makes the construction of such ships for a wider internal 
market a challenge.   

Although the statistics on the internal market potential for small passenger ships outside the 
scope of the Directive is not available (commercial databases do not in general cover ships of 
less  than  24  m  in  length),  the  fitness  check  showed  that  the  EU  passenger  ship  safety 
legislation facilitated the free movement of ships between EU Member States. The evidence 
demonstrates that the change of flag increased by 400% since 1998 for ships falling under the 

4  

SWD(2015)197. 

4 

 
 
 
                                                            
scope of Directive 2009/45/EC (presenting 30% of the passenger fleet in terms of number of 
vessels).  

The  absence  of  harmonised  safety  standards  presents  an  important  challenge  especially  for 
smaller  European  ship-owners,  relying  on  the  second  hand  market  of  small  passenger  ships 
(for  comparison,  72%  out  of  ca.  360  ship-owners  with  passenger  ships  under  Directive 
2009/45/EC  operate  only  one  such  ship).  In  case  the  ship  is  not  certified  according  to  the 
Directive, the principle of mutual recognition should, apply.  In practice, however, as every 
ship  is  close  to  being  a  prototype,  i.e.  built  for  a  specific  purpose  according  to  technical 
specifications determined by its future owner, this is not the case. In case of a change of flag, 
the ship may need to be modified and re-certified – with the associated additional costs that 
this implies.  

In  the  course  of  fitness  check,  several  stakeholders  (namely  shipyards)  and  Member  States 
(e.g.  Denmark,  Portugal,  Sweden,  Croatia)  highlighted  that  the  internal  market  would  be 
facilitated by agreeing on an EU common safety level for this segment of ships, irrespectively 
of the material from which they are built. 

Although  the  accident  statistics  does  not  reveal  any  imminent  safety  concern,  the  revealed 
absence of certain requirements in some Member States (e.g. on subdivision of small ships) or 
the  variable  stringency  of  requirements  on  e.g.  fire  insulation,  created  the  need  for  further 
consideration of the achieved safety level (determined by additional measures tailored to local 
and geophysical conditions, such as navigation restrictions). 

2.3.  Objective and legal basis 

In the spirit of the Commission's REFIT and Better Regulation agenda and as a follow-up to 
the  fitness  check,  the  objective  of  this  initiative  is  to  pave  the  way  for  a  more  common 
approach  as  regards  safety  for  small  passenger  ships  operating  on  domestic  voyages  within 
EU waters and developing an internal market therefor.  

The legal basis is Article 292 TFEU, providing for the Council to adopt recommendations, on 
a  proposal  from  the  Commission.  This  initiative  is  also  linked  to  measures  related  to  sea 
transport,  envisaged  by  Article  100  (2)  TFEU.  In  view  of  the  novelty  of  the  proposed 
approach, its uptake by EU Member States is key to its success. This initiative is therefore put 
forward  in  a  form  of  a  Commission  Proposal  for  a  Council  Recommendation,  inviting 
Member  States  to  embrace  the  recommended  performance  based  safety  approach  and  to 
support its further development. 

The safety goals and functional requirements annexed to the Recommendation are based on 
such  performance  standards  framework  and  have  been  developed  on  the  basis  of  existing 
practices  and  jointly  with  the  experts  from  national  administrations  and  stakeholder 
organisations.  They  are  put  forward  to  Member  States  as  an  inspiration  and  guidance,  to 
demonstrate that a common approach to the safety of passenger ships is feasible. In no case 
they are intended to be applied in a mandatory manner. 

5 

 
 
2.4.  Data collection and stakeholder consultation 

Concerning  the  data  on  the  fleet  and  accidents,  this  initiative  builds  on  the  data  collected 
during  the  REFIT  fitness  check  process  and  reported  in  the  Commission  Staff  Working 
Document 'Adjusting course: EU Passenger Ship Safety Legislation Fitness Check', adopted 
in  16  October  20155.  Findings  of  external  study  carried  out  in  support  of  the  fitness  check 
have also been used6, as well as the results of the previous work on this issue. The European 
Maritime  Safety  Agency  (EMSA)  provided  the  key  technical  assistance  in  this  process, 
including an overview of the most relevant existing practices for these ships.  

The REFIT data gathering exercise concerning the EU domestic passenger fleet was the first 
of its kind and required several rounds of consultations, corrections and effort both on the part 
of  national  administrations  and  EMSA/Commission.  A  database  has  been  created  and  is 
planned  to  be  updated at  regular  intervals  corresponding  to  the  evaluation  cycles  of  the  EU 
passenger ship safety regulatory framework.  

The safety goals and functional requirements for small passenger ships (the Small Passenger 
Ship Guide)7 have been developed with national experts and stakeholder organisations in the 
framework  of  the  Passenger  Ship  Safety  (PSS)  Expert  Group,  which  has  been  enlarged  for 
this purpose to include stakeholder observers. The technical work has been coordinated by the 
European  Maritime  Safety  Agency,  which  organised  a  specific  workshop  on  13  November 
2017  in  addition  to  the  regular  meetings  of  the  PSS  Expert  Group  and  coordinated  a 
correspondence group set up for this purpose. 

While  the  large  majority  of  experts  from  national  competent  authorities  and  stakeholder 
organisations have been supportive to this initiative, there were some questions on the need 
for  and  value  added  of  this  initiative.  The  overview  of  and  feedback  provided  to  these 
questions is reported in Chapter 6 and Annex 3. In summary, it was agreed that if the common 
EU  approach  for  small  passenger  ships  was  to  be  further  developed,  all  alternative  policy 
options  of  doing  so  would  need  to  be  looked  at  and  carefully  assessed,  including  the  form 
which  the  final  framework  should  take  (i.e.  mandatory,  non-mandatory  etc.).  This  approach 
follows  the  Commission's  Better  Regulation  principles  and  does  not  pre-empt  any  result  of 
future impact analysis or the final Commission decision that might be taken. The summary of 
the meetings of the PSS Expert Group have been published in the Register of expert groups.8  

Furthermore, an online consultation was organised between July and November 20179. This 
consultation  was  targeted  at  economic  operators  involved  in  building  of  and  trading  with 

5  
6  

7  
8  
9  

(published 

SWD(2015)197. 
Tractebel,  2015.  Support  Study  for  the  Fitness  Check  (FC)  –  Evaluation  of  Passenger  Ship  Safety 
the  EU  bookshop:  https://publications.europa.eu/en/web/general-
Legislation 
publications/publications)  
Initially developed under the working title "Small Craft Code". 
http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regexpert/.  
Consultation  website:  https://ec.europa.eu/info/consultations/targeted-consultation-safety-goals-and-
functional-requirements-small-passenger-ships.  

at 

6 

 
 
                                                            
passenger ships below 24 meters in length, such as shipyards, designers, owners and operators 
thereof. All other stakeholders could contribute to this consultation as they felt fit. 

This consultation was launched to collect views of economic operators, especially the small 
and very small ones, on the extent to which common EU rules for small passenger ships could 
facilitate  the  internal  market  with  small  passenger  ships.  The  consultation  also  aimed  at 
gathering  anecdotal  evidence  in  support  thereof.  It  complemented  the  above  mentioned 
consultation  with  national  authorities  and  stakeholders  that  focused  on  the  technical 
development of the safety goals and functional requirements themselves. The summary of the 
consultation is provided in Annex 1. 

Replies were provided in total by 43 respondents from 13 Member States, with the majority of 
respondents being micro or small enterprises, which corresponded well to the targeted sector 
of  small  passenger  ships  owners  or  operators.  Overall,  the  results  have  shown  that  this 
initiative is strongly supported by economic operators (as well as 5 national administrations 
who  also  submitted  their  replies  or  positions)  and  that  common  EU  safety  rules  for  small 
passenger ships are seen to have potentially very positive or positive impact on establishing 
and  facilitating  internal  market  with  these  vessels,  increasing  competition  and  possibly  also 
innovation  on  the  market.  In  their  general  comments  the  respondents  stressed  that  any 
common EU rules should not re-invent the wheel and should be sufficiently flexible to allow 
for local operating conditions and expertise to be well reflected. 

3.

The EU domestic passenger fleet 

Passenger ships play an important role in the mobility of EU citizens - more than 400 million 
people  pass  through  EU  ports  every  year,  with  120  million  passengers  being  transported 
between  ports  in  the  same  Member  State.  This  initiative  addresses  exclusively  small 
passenger ships sailing on domestic voyages, i.e. on ships carrying more than 12 passengers 
on board, which are shorter than 24 metres10 and sailing between ports of the same Member 
State11. 

Overall, the existing EU fleet of ships below 24 m is constituted by around 60 ships in steel, 
170  ships  in  aluminium,  600  ships  in  composite  and  1000  ships  in  wood  (see  Table  1)12.  It 
needs  to  be  kept  in  mind  that  this  initiative  is  not  intended  to  apply  to  existing  ships  - 
therefore  these  figures  give  only  an  indication  of  potential  magnitude  of  application  of  the 
common  standards  framework,  if  fully  developed  and  applied13.  In  such  case,  the  fleet 
replacement rate of such vessels will determine what impact the framework will have, given 
the life time of these assets (average age of passenger ships in the EU exceeds 25 years). It is 

10  

11  
12  

13  

It should be noted that where the text refers to ships above 24 m in length, it should be read as above or 
equal 24 m in length. 
In the sea areas A, B, C or D, as defined in Directive 2009/45/EC. 
The  main  criterion  for  presenting  the  EU  domestic  passenger  fleet  is  the  size  of  the  vessel, 
irrespectively of whether it has been certified under Directive 2009/45/EC or not. 
Furthermore,  these  figures  include  also  high  speed  passenger  craft  which  is  not  covered  by  this 
initiative. 

7 

 
 
 
                                                            
a  well-established  practice  in  the  maritime  sector  that  existing  assets  are  normally 
"grandfathered" unless there is an urgent safety concern.  

Table 1: EU domestic passenger fleet - classification per size and number of vessels 

No. Ships 
>=24m 

No. ships 
<24m 

% Ships 
>=24m 

% Ships 
<24m 

251 

120 

142 

682 

168 

589 

1014 

60 

1195 

1831 

60% 

17% 

12% 

92% 

39% 

40% 

83% 

88% 

8% 

61% 

Aluminium14  

Composite  

Wood  

Steel 

Total 

Source: MS 2014/09 FC Questionnaire, EMSA 2018 

In terms of geographical distribution, in total there are around 1800 ships of less than 24 m 
sailing  in  sea  areas  A,  B,  C  or  D.  Around  half  of  these  vessels  operate  in  Italy  and  Greece 
combined and another third in Spain and France combined. This means that 4 Member States 
have almost 85% of the fleet of such ships. However, it must be noted that only sea areas A, 
B, C or D are being considered and that the Scandinavian archipelagos and port areas, where 
many small passenger ships also operate have been excluded from this calculation. 

It  should  be  noted  that  the  largest  ships  in  the  EU  domestic  passenger  fleet  fall  inside  the 
scope of EU passenger ship safety legislation, namely Directive 2009/45/EC: ca. 70% of the 
ships bigger than 24 m in length are certified according to this Directive. On the other hand, 
only ca. 4% of ships smaller than 24 m length have been certified under this Directive15.  

While small passenger ships present a majority in terms of the number of vessels of the EU 
domestic  passenger  fleet  (ca.  60%),  the  picture  is  opposite  in  terms  of  passenger  capacity 
given that the larger the ship, the larger the passenger capacity. Nonetheless, as the following 
table shows, a significant portion of passengers is carried on smaller vessels.  

14  
15  

Excludes the ships operating in French Overseas Territories (New Caledonia etc.). 
For  more  details  on  the  passenger  ships  falling  inside  the  scope  of  Directive  2009/45/EC,  see 
COM(2015)197. Small passenger ships have been excluded from the scope of Directive 2009/45/EC by 
Directive  (EU)  2017/2108,  which  entered  into  force  on  20  December  2017  and  shall  be  applied  by 
Member States as of 21 December 2019. 

8 

 
 
  
 
                                                            
Table 2: EU domestic passenger fleet - classification per size and passenger capacity 

Passenger 
capacity 
>=24m 

Passenger 
capacity 
<24m 

% 
Passenger 
capacity 
>=24m 

% 
Passenger 
capacity 
<24m 

Aluminium16  

81,193 

17,534 

82% 

Composite  

23,333 

52,837 

31% 

Wood  

Steel 

Total 

32,585 

77,004 

30% 

320,555 

6,893 

98% 

2% 

457,666 

154,268 

75% 

25% 

Source: MS 2014/09 FC Questionnaire, EMSA 2018 

18% 

69% 

70% 

3.1.  Overview of the fleet according to the material of construction 

Small passenger ships are mainly built from materials other than steel: aluminium, composite 
or  wood.  The  following  figures  show  the  distribution  of  this  fleet  according  to  the  size  and 
Member State of operation. 

France has the largest share of aluminium built ships, followed by Italy and Greece. Spain has 
the largest fleet of composite built ships17, followed by France and Italy. Italy has by far the 
largest  share  of  wooden  built  ships  (ca.  60%),  followed  by  Spain  and  Greece  (around  10% 
each). Greece and Italy have the largest fleet of ships made of steel (primarily larger than 24 
m in length).  

16  
17  

Excludes the ships operating in French Overseas Territories (New Caledonia etc.). 
Composite built ships have been 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. 

9 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Figure 1: Aluminium ships - classification per size and Member State of operation 

Source: MS 2014/09 FC Questionnaire, EMSA 2018 

Figure 2: Composite ships - classification per size and Member State of operation

>=24m

<24m

TOTAL Number of Composite Ships 
Total 709 ships  

250

200

150

100

50

0

217 

118 

74 

38 

29 

25 

7 

0 

3 

0 

81 

42 

21 

0 

12 

0 

12 

2 

12 

0 

16 

0 

FR

UK

SE

EL

ES

IE

NO

DE

IT

FI

PT

Source: MS 2014/09 FC Questionnaire, EMSA 2018 

10 

 
 
 
Figure 3: Wooden ships - classification per size and Member State of operation 

Source: MS 2014/09 FC Questionnaire, EMSA 2018 

Figure 4: Steel ships - classification per size and Member State of operation 

Source: MS 2014/09 FC Questionnaire, EMSA 2018 

11 

 
 
 
 
3.2.  EU internal market 

A  measure  of  the  internal  market  dimension  or  cross-border  transactions  in  maritime 
passenger transport can described according to three main indicators: (1) changes of flag; (2) 
cabotage (i.e. passenger ships operating in Member States other than the state of registry); and 
(3) shipbuilding (passenger ships built in one Member State and operated in another). 

The first one is by far the most relevant for the small passenger ships. 

The “changes of flag” indicator reflects the (lack of) internal barriers in changing the state of 
registry where a domestic passenger ship operates. In principle and unless justified by safety 
reasons, a ship certified according to common EU standards should be accepted in another EU 
State without requests for modification  (indeed, the  results of the fitness check showed that 
the EU passenger  ship  safety legislation has facilitated the free  movement  of ships between 
EU Member States18). 

The information on flag changes of small passenger ships is not available because commercial 
databases do not in general cover ships of this size. Despite this lack of information, some of 
these changes of flag do occur even though in a sporadic manner, which can be supported by 
the  anecdotal  evidence from  the  online  consultation,  such  as:  "I  went through  this last  year 
and  it  was  a  nightmare.  […]  I  would  not  have  done  it  if  I  had  known  beforehand;  […]  In 
many cases, it is not possible to move ships within the EU either technically or economically; 
[…] A lot of buyers, despite repeated warnings believe that if a vessel is certified in another 
state then it is acceptable here. This is not the case and leads to additional cost." 

Furthermore,  a  ship  is  a  capital  intensive  investment  which  takes  years  to  pay  off  and  the 
value of a ship  is still  relevant  also for  an  ageing fleet (taking  into  account  that in shipping 
discount  rates  are  calculated  on  life  cycle  of  25  years).  Therefore,  any  ship  flag  change 
represents a significant value.  

Where common standards do not exist (such as in the case of small passenger ships), mutual 
recognition should, in principle, apply.19 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 (even making such transfer impossible – as noted in the 
online consultation).  

18  

19  

On the basis of the data collected on the changes of flag under Directive 2009/45/EC and the results of 
the online consultation, it can be expected that in a harmonized regulatory environment also changes of 
flags for passengers ships below 24 m would start to happen in a more systemic  manner; this market 
segment  is  now  in  the  same  situation  as  the  larger  ships  before  the  entry  into  force  of  Directive 
2009/45/EC (i.e. its predecessor Directive 98/18/EC). For more details, see SWD(2015)197. 
See Regulation (EC) No 789/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on 
the  transfer  of  cargo  and  passenger  ships  between  registers  within  the  Community  and  repealing 
Council Regulation (EEC) No 613/91 (OJ L 138, 30.4.2004, p. 19–23). 

12 

 
 
                                                            
Box  1:  Consultation  results  concerning  the  second  hand  market  with  small  passenger 
ships 

In  the  consultation,  the  large  majority  of  respondents  (25  out  of  37  economic  operators  or 
passengers20)  considered  that  the  existence  of  different  standards  in  each  EU  Member  State 
present a trade barrier to sell or buy an existing small passenger ship to or from another EU 
Member  State  to  a  high  or  medium  extent,  sometimes  making  the  transfer  impossible 
altogether  (especially  if  the  adaptations  are  very  costly  and  involve  essential  construction 
features  of  the  ship).  More  specifically,  barriers  such  as  differences  in  the  requirements  for 
safety equipment on board, flag registration, technical fitness assessment, or disproportionate 
operating restrictions have been mentioned.  

All  4  national  administrations  who  also  responded  to  the  questionnaire  considered  the 
existence of different standards in each EU Member State to be a trade barrier, either to a high 
extent (1 response) or a medium extent (3 responses), highlighting that "different rules in each 
Member State cause additional work, risks and administrative burdens in flag changes", even 
making the transfer impossible. 

Similarly,  the  corresponding  cost  of  technical  modifications  and  administrative  re-
certification was considered by the large majority of economic operators as highly significant 
or  significant,  noting  for  example  "safety  equipment  and  safety  standards  as  well  as  fire 
prevention and  firefighting  standards  that  are  'miles  apart'  in  different  Member  States"  and 
highlighting the non-quantifiable cost  of  "total confusion", the waiting and  processing time, 
language  differences  and  the  lack  of  knowledge  of  the  permission  procedures  in  different 
Member States.  

Source: Online consultation, 2017 

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 (out 
of which only 1 smaller than 24 m in length). 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  (for  reasons  of  inspection  regimes,  commercial 
reasons etc.). The relevance of this indicator for small passenger ships is therefore relatively 
limited and it has not been explored further. 

And  finally,  as  a  third  indicator,  ship-building.  For  small  passenger  ships,  the  shipbuilding 
activity  is  more  concentrated  in  the  countries  where  these  ships  then  operate  such  as  Italy, 
Spain, France, UK21. 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 below 24 m, statistics are not available due to the reasons mentioned 

20  

21  

Most respondents identified themselves under more than one category; their grouping is therefore only 
indicative. The replies of national administrations are reported separately. For more details, see Annex 
1. 
For  reference,  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. 

13 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
above  but  the  results  of  the  online  consultation  illustrate  the  positive  impact  of  potential 
common EU rules (i.e. small size ships not included in commercial databases).  

Box  2:  Consultation  results  concerning  the  shipbuilding  and  procurement  of  small 
passenger ships 

The large majority of economic operators who responded to the questionnaire indicated that 
the existence  of common EU safety  requirements would have a  strong or  moderate positive 
influence on the decision of buyers to procure a newly built small passenger ship from a ship-
yard  located  in  another  EU  Member  State.  The  respondents  highlighted  for  example  the 
potential of common EU rules to facilitate the procurement process, eliminate red tape, avoid 
disproportionate national requirements and reduce (albeit not completely eliminate) language 
barriers.  Positive  impact  on  confidence,  consistency  and  surveyors'  work  has  also  been 
mentioned.  It  was  also  noted  that  in  the  case  of  small  ships  in  particular,  the  second  hand 
market is more important than the new builds.  

Remarkably, there was a unanimous agreement that common EU safety requirements would 
have  a  very  positive  or  positive  impact  on  the  design  and  construction  of  a  new  small 
passenger ship for a client from another EU Member State. These replies were corroborated 
by  explaining  that  for  example  national  markets  would  open  to  competitive  operators  from 
other  Member  States,  increasing  the  offer  for  the  clients  possibly  at  lower  price;    less  time 
would  be  spent  studying  each  rule  for  each  country,  equipment  would  be  standardised  etc., 
leading to  lower  cost;  positive impact on safety. More generally, it was noted that common 
EU rules eliminating existing excessive requirements may have a positive impact on renewing 
the  fleet  where  aging  and  often  less  suitable  vessels  are  kept  in  operation  longer  than  they 
should. 

Concerning innovation, albeit the majority of respondents considered that common EU rules 
would foster it to a high or medium extent, it was also noted that it may be more relevant for 
the bigger shipyards who could invest in innovative designs rather that the majority of small 
yards. 

On competition, 27 out of 37 responding economic operators indicated that common EU rules 
would  lead  to  moderate  increase  in  competition,  highlighting  different  production  costs  in 
Member  States  and  higher  easiness  to  participate  in  tenders  across  the  EU.  It  was  however 
also noted that case of small passenger ships, a large part of the selection of a designer is prior 
experience in working with and trust in the designer. 

Similarly to the economic operators, national administrations highlighted positive impact on 
the competition, level playing field and the second hand market, its value and the transfer of 
ships between Member States. They also noted that "Common safety requirements, especially 
adopted for small ships, would promote investment in commercially profitable new buildings. 
Excessive new building requirements prevent regeneration of vessel fleet." 

14 

 
 
 
3.3.  Accident statistics 

The  accident  statistics  reported  below  are  based  on  the  European  Marine  Casualty 
Information  Platform  (EMCIP),  the  EU  database  on  maritime  accidents  established  by 
Directive 2009/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council22 and operated on behalf 
of the Commission by EMSA. This database was established rather recently and the number 
of years for which data is available in EMCIP is therefore still relatively limited23.  

Table 6 shows the evolution of accidents reported in EMCIP for passenger ships of less than 
24  m  in  length.  As  can  be  noted,  the  reporting  of  accidents  has  been  increasing  since  the 
establishment  of  the  database  (most  likely  due  to  improved  reporting)  but  has  recently 
stabilised. 

Table 3: Accidents of small passenger ships 

Year 

Accidents reported 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2017 

34 

56 

72 

72 

93 

113 

116 

Source: EMSA on the basis of EMCIP data, 2018 

The  accident  statistics  available  for  the  REFIT  fitness  check  (with  data  until  January  2015) 
showed for small passenger ships 252 accidents recorded in EMCIP, with 139 injured people 
and  5  fatalities.  This  meant  approximately  2  fatalities  every  100  accidents  and  1  person 
injured every 2 accidents. For the purpose of this Staff Working Document, the statistics has 
been  updated  with  data  until  January  2018  but  no  major  change  in  the  trend  has  been 
experienced. This situation looks as follows: 

22  

23  

Directive 2009/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 establishing the 
fundamental  principles  governing  the  investigation  of  accidents  in  the  maritime  transport  sector  and 
amending Council Directive 1999/35/EC and Directive 2002/59/EC of the European Parliament and of 
the Council (OJ L 131, 28.5.2009, p. 114–127). 
Furthermore, given the novelty of the system, accidents may have been under-reported in the first years 
of its operation, namely 2011 and 2012. 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Table 4: Evolution of accident statistics for small passenger ships 

No. 
Accid. 

Accid. 
per year 

Serious 
or very 
serious 

% 
Serious 
or very 
serious  

Fatalities 

Fatalities/ 
100 accid. 

Injured 

Injured 
per accid. 

252 

63 

96 

38% 

5 

555 

79 

177 

32% 

11 

2 

2 

139 

0.55 

165 

0.30 

Source: EMSA on the basis of EMCIP data, 2018 

Until January 
2015 

Updated until 
january 2018 

As  Table  7  shows,  there  the  number  of  accidents  reported  per  year  increased  but  the 
percentage of serious/very serious accidents has decreased – most likely as a consequence of 
increased  reporting  of  marine  incidents  and  less  serious  accidents.  This  is  a  positive 
development. 

With regards to additional fatalities, it can be noted that all 5 fatalities recorded until January 
2015 were due to occupational accidents, while out of the additional 6 fatalities, there are 4 
passengers  and  2  crew  members24.  All  in  all,  the  ratio  of  fatalities  per  100  accidents  has 
remained  constant.  Finally,  the  ratio  of  injured  people  per  accident  has  decreased,  which  is 
most likely also the effect of increased reporting of less serious accidents. 

4.

Performance based regulatory approach 

4.1.  Background 

Performance  based  regulations  are  known  and  applied  since  ancient  times25  and  gained  an 
increased  attention  and  application  in  modern  times.  Setting  a  performance  target  allows 
economic  operators  the  flexibility  to  achieve  a  certain  goal  rather  than  to  follow  specified 
technologies,  procedures  or  processes.  Such  simple  principles  can  be  applied  differently  in 
different regulatory approaches and a complete taxonomy does not (yet) exist. The application 
of  performance  based  rules  therefore  differs  even  in  the  same  sector,  depending  on  the 
political  and  administrative  environment  where  these  rules  for  rules  are  developed  or  the 
sector specific adaptations.   

Furthermore,  the  boundary  between  prescriptive  and  performance  based  regulation  is  not 
always  clear-cut;  performance  based  criteria  can  be  specified  either  very  narrowly  (for 

24  

25  

4 of the fatalities occurred when a private fast boat collided at full speed with and practically cut in two 
pieces a small passenger ship in Greece; the other two fatalities are fall-overboard accidents. 
Enshrined in the very first Code of Laws, the Hammurabi Code; for example in the construction section 
– Rule 229 "If a builder builds a house for someone, and does not construct it properly, and the house 
which he built falls in and kills its owner, then that builder shall be put to death". 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
example by prescribing the performance of a specific pump in an industrial process), offering 
thus  little  room  for  manoeuvre  to  economic  operators,  or  can  be  defined  very  broadly  (for 
example by specifying the safety level of vessels), offering more latitude for implementation 
to  economic operators. However also in this latter case, such broad definitions may need to 
verified  by  strict  adherence  to  certain  models  (physical  or  virtual),  transferring  de  facto  the 
prescriptive requirements to the next layer of regulation. 

A  key  element  of  the  performance  based  rules  is  the  "opt-out"  principle  by  which  the 
economic  operators  have  to  demonstrate  that  they  can  achieve  a  comparable  level  of 
performance  through  other  means.  This  is  often  implemented  by  requiring  some  specific 
technologies or designs, while adding to the regulation the so-called equivalency clauses for 
alternative  compliance  mechanisms.  The  difference  in  application  stems  from  various 
combinations of prescriptive standards, as well as elements of tiered regulations, equivalency 
clauses,  alternative  compliance  mechanisms,  or  industrial  codes  of  practice.  Any  given 
performance based regulation may require performance thresholds and specific technologies, 
or  may  set  performance  goals  and  provide  prescriptive  guidance  in  the  form  of  codes  of 
practice.  

The  application  of  performance  based  regulation  in  the  maritime  sector  is  well  understood 
both  at  European  and  at  international  level,  albeit  its  application  somewhat  differs,  as 
described in the following chapters. 

4.2.  The New Approach 

At the EU level, the so-called New Approach constituted an essential step in preparing for the 
establishment of the single market in 1992. Instead of detailed legislative texts containing all 
the  necessary  technical  and  administrative  requirements,  the  New  Approach  consisted  in 
restricting the content of legislation to ‘essential requirements’, leaving the technical details to 
the European harmonised standards. The basic elements on which the New Approach is built 
are: Notification, accreditation, conformity assessment, marking and market surveillance. 

The  objective  is  to  ensure  that  products  lawfully  manufactured  or  marketed  in  any  of  the 
Member  States  meet  equivalent  levels  of  performance  and  can  move  freely  throughout  the 
EU. Barriers to  free movement which  result from differences in  national legislation  may be 
accepted only if national measures: 

- 

- 

- 

are  necessary  to  satisfy  mandatory  requirements  (such  as  health,  safety, 
consumer protection and environmental protection), 
serve  a  legitimate  purpose  which  justifies  overriding  the  principle  of  free 
movement of goods, and 
can  be  justified  with  regard  to  the  legitimate  purpose  and  are  proportionate 
with the aims. 

Besides  the  marine  equipment,  the  New  Approach  applies  in  other  EU  sectoral  legislation, 
such as toys, machinery, radio equipment, pressure equipment, medical devices, recreational 
crafts,  explosives,  pyrotechnic  articles  or  personal  protective  equipment.  In  total,  there  are 

17 

 
 
around 20 product-related directives aligned with the New Approach. Nonetheless, it should 
be also noted that the New Approach  is  not applied in  the area of chemicals (REACH)  and 
motor vehicles. 

In regulatory terms, the New Approach consists of: 

•  Regulation  (EC)  765/200826  setting  out  the  requirements  for  accreditation  and  the 

market surveillance of products; 

•  Decision 768/200827 on a common framework for the marketing of products. In effect, 

it is a template for future product harmonisation legislation; 

•  Regulation  (EC)  764/200828  laying  down  procedures  relating  to  the  application  of 
certain national technical rules to products lawfully marketed in another EU country. 

In addition, the Blue Guide (2016) constitutes the overall guidance. 

In more detail, the common main features and structure of the New Approach are as follows: 

Essential requirements 

•  Legislative harmonisation should be  limited to  the essential requirements, preferably 

performance or functional requirements; 

•  This approach is appropriate only where it is possible to distinguish between essential 

requirements and technical specifications; 

•  As  the  scope  of  such  legislation is  risk-related,  the  wide  range  of  products  covered 
has  to  be  sufficiently  homogeneous  for  common  essential  requirements  to  be 
applicable; 

•  Articles placed on EU market must conform to essential (safety) requirements 
•  The  essential  requirements  are  usually  described  in  an  annex  of  the  respective  New 

• 

Approach Legislation and vary from general to very detailed; 
If  articles  conform,  they  receive  a  “CE  marking”  and  can  be  placed  on  market 
anywhere in EU. 

Harmonised standards 

•  European Standards remain voluntary and there is no legal obligation to apply them; 

26  

27  

28  

Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 setting out 
the  requirements  for  accreditation  and  market  surveillance  relating  to  the  marketing  of  products  and 
repealing Regulation (EEC) No 339/93 (OJ L 218, 13.8.2008, p. 30–47). 
Decision No 768/2008/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 on a common 
framework  for  the  marketing  of  products,  and  repealing  Council  Decision  93/465/EEC  (OJ  L  218, 
13.8.2008, p. 82–128). 
Regulation  (EC)  No  764/2008  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  9  July  2008  laying 
down  procedures  relating  to  the  application  of  certain  national  technical  rules  to  products  lawfully 
marketed in another Member State and repealing Decision No 3052/95/EC (OJ L 218, 13.8.2008, p. 21–
29). 

18 

 
 
                                                            
•  Any producer (or service provider) who chooses not to follow a harmonised standard 
is  obliged  to  prove  that  their  products  (or  services)  conform  to  the  essential 
requirements; 

•  European  standards,  which  are  referenced  in  the  OJEU,  provide  “presumption  of 

conformity” with the New Approach Directives; 

•  European  Standards  (EN)  must  be  implemented  as  National  Standards  by  each 

national standardisation body; 

•  Conflicting national standards must be withdrawn; 
•  Commission mandates CEN to adapt existing and draft additional standards; 
• 
 CEN can work in collaboration with ISO, through Vienna Agreement; 
• 
 A strong legislative basis facilitates the drafting process for standards. 

Figure 5: New Approach – Essential requirements and harmonised standards 

Source: DG GROW, 2017 

Conformity assessment 

•  The procedures for conformity assessment are contained in Decision No 768/2008/EC 

on a common framework for the marketing of products; 

•  Conformity  assessment  is  either  performed  as  self-assessment  (module  a)  or  as  an 

assessment by a third party (notified body) (EN ISO/EIC 17000 series); 

•  While  self-assessment  is  allowed  for  some  products  (e.g.  toys),  there  is  mandatory 

third-party assessment for others (e.g. explosives). 

19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 6: New Approach – Conformity assessment 

Source: DG GROW, 2017 

Chapter 4 of Decision No 768/2008/EC contains a template of the standard rules for NBs: 

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

 Accreditation preferred; 
 No conflict of interest; 
 Qualified personnel and access to facilities; 
 Shall participate in/be informed of NB For a; 
 Procedure for challenge of competence. 

CE marking 

General principles are contained in Regulation (EC) 765/2008 setting out the requirements for 
accreditation and market surveillance relating to the marketing of products: 

•  CE marking is affixed by the manufacturer or authorised representative; 

20 

 
 
 
 
 
 
•  May be affixed only where it is required by the legislation; 
• 

Is the only marking attesting conformity with the applicable requirements. 

Market surveillance 

General principles are contained in chapter III of Regulation (EC) 765/2008: 

•  Member States shall either draw up general market surveillance programmes or sector 

specific ones; 

•  Rules for products presenting a serious risk and restrictive measures (lex generalis); 
•  RAPEX, ICSMS and ADCOs. 

Finally,  the  box  below  illustrates  a  specific  application  of  the  New  Approach  in  the  sector 
most relevant to small passenger ships, i.e. small boats operated for recreational purposes (not 
for  commercial  purpose  as  in  case  of  passenger  ships).  In  this  sector,  the  experience  has 
shown that the New Approach works well in this sector and should be maintained and even 
further promoted29. 

Box 3: Directive 2013/53/EU on recreational craft and personal watercraft30  

This  Directive  was  adopted  in  the  context  of  establishing  the  internal  market  in  order  to  harmonise 
safety  characteristics  of  recreational  craft  in  all  Member  States  and  to  remove  obstacles  to  trade  in 
recreational craft between Member States. It covers recreational craft of a minimum hull length of 2,5 
m and a maximum length of 24 m and is based on the New Approach principles. Thus, it sets out only 
the essential requirements applying to recreational craft, whereas technical details are adopted by the 
European  Committee  for  Standardisation  (CEN)  and  the  European  Committee  for  Electrotechnical 
Standardisation (CENELEC). These harmonised standards provide a presumption of conformity with 
the requirements of the Directive.  

More specifically, this Directive contains notions that the manufacturer, having detailed knowledge of 
the  design  and  production  process,  is  best  placed  to  carry  out  the  complete  conformity  assessment 
procedure. Conformity assessment should therefore remain the obligation of the manufacturer alone in 
the  frame  of  this  Directive.  As  a  consequence,  in  order  to  ensure  compliance  with  the  essential 
requirements, it is necessary to lay down appropriate conformity assessment procedures to be followed 
by  the  manufacturer.  Those  procedures  are  set  by  reference  to  conformity  assessment  modules  laid 
down  in  Decision  No  768/2008/EC  and  devised  in  the  light  of  the  level  of  the  risk  which  may  be 
inherent  in  the  watercraft,  engines  and  components.  Therefore  each  category  of  conformity  is 
supplemented  by  an  appropriate  procedure  or  a  choice  between  several  equivalent  procedures. 
Furthermore, obligatory requirements are set for conformity assessment bodies wishing to be notified 
in order to provide conformity assessment services under this Directive. 

Source: Directive 2013/53/EU 

29  
30  

Recital 3 of Directive 2013/53/EU. 
Directive  2013/53/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  20  November  2013  on 
recreational craft and personal watercraft and repealing Directive 94/25/EC (OJ L 354, 28.12.2013, p. 
90–131). 

21 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
4.3.  Goal-based standard approach 

In the maritime safety sector, the benchmark for performance based regulatory approach is the 
model  of  the  International  Maritime  Organization  (IMO)  known  as  Goal  Based  Standards 
(GBS) framework.  

Primarily aimed  at ensuring an  adequate level of safety,  the IMO GBS framework  provides 
for  a  methodology  to  develop  detailed  regulations  for  a  specific  field,  i.e.  rules  for  rules. 
Albeit  driven  by  the  same  performance  based  principle  as  the  New  Approach,  the  GBS 
framework is defined in a different manner – a hierarchical structure of tiers. While some of 
the  New  Approach  elements  may  be  directly  compared  to  these  tiers  (i.e.  essential 
requirements, harmonised standards), other elements have a different twist with respect to the 
IMO  GBS  framework  (such  as  the  conformity  assessment  and  market  surveillance).  A 
specific EU element of CE marking is completely missing.  

The  GBS  tiers  range  from  more  general  principles  (goals  and  functional  requirements)  to 
detailed  rules  and  industry  standards.  Between  the  general  principles  and  the  detailed  rules 
there is a verification procedure through which it is assessed whether the detailed rules fulfil 
the general principles.  

Similarly to the New Approach, the GBS framework has many advantages with respect to a 
pure prescriptive framework where the general level of safety is not explicit. For example, in 
case a manufacturer or shipyard would like to innovate in a certain area of the ship design, the 
prescriptive requirements  could  represent  an  important  obstacle.  In  such  case,  the  innovator 
has to interpret the subjacent safety principles of the relevant prescriptive requirement, extract 
performance requirements and then prepare an innovative proposal fulfilling those principles.  

In  the  GBS  approach,  any  prescriptive  requirement  is  linked  to  safety  principles  and 
performance  requirements  and,  accordingly,  the  assessment  of  innovative  solutions  against 
the intended safety level is significantly facilitated. On the other hand, such assessment also 
necessitates adequate technical knowledge and resources.  

Another  advantage  of  making  the  general  safety  principles  explicit  is  that  they  provide  a 
baseline for assessing the need for any exemption or additional measures that may arise due to 
specific design or operational conditions. The GBS framework, while setting high-level safety 
goals  to  be  met,  therefore  allows  for  adaptation  to  local  circumstances  which  proves  to  be 
necessary in the EU context. 

It  also  needs  to  be  stressed  that  the  complete  GBS  framework  includes  detailed  technical 
requirements,  even  if  they  are  not  mandatory.  This  is  very  important  especially  for 
stakeholders with little technical capacity or those wishing to use a standard design “from the 
shelf”.  

22 

 
 
The  main  principles  and  characteristics  of  the  IMO  GBS  framework  can  be  found  in  the 
Generic guidelines for developing IMO goal-based standards31 and are illustrated in Figure 1 
below.  

Figure 7: IMO goal-based standards framework 

4.4.  Existing experience with the GBS framework 

Source: IMO, 2015 

At  international  level,  the  transfer  from  prescriptive  regulations  to  the  GBS  framework  has 
proven resource intensive both with regards to the need for technical expertise as well as time. 
The development of regulations at IMO following the GBS model can take years of work with 
the participation of many specialists in the field.  

The model has been used to its full extent only for a specific part of certain ship types, i.e. for 
structural rules for tankers and bulk carriers32. In this particular case, the GBS were developed 
at  the  IMO  and  the  Classification  Societies  presented  detailed  rules  with  a  self-assessment 

31  
32  

MSC.1/Circ.1394/Rev.1 of 22 June 2015. 
Chapter II-1 Regulation 3-10 of the 1974 SOLAS Convention.  

23 

 
 
 
                                                            
showing  the  fulfilment  of  the  GBS.  Later,  three  auditing  teams  were  formed  from  IMO 
experts to verify that in fact the GBS was respected.  

The  Polar  Code33  and  the  IGF  Code34  have  been  also  developed  following  GBS  standards, 
although  not  to  the  full  extent.  For  example,  the  functional  requirements  lack  performance 
requirements and there was no formal verification. Chapter II-2 of SOLAS35 was also framed 
taking into account the GBS philosophy, albeit in a limited manner. The most recent example 
corresponds  to  SOLAS  Chapter  III,  where  substantial  work  has  been  carried  out  in  the  last 
years in developing a GBS model and is still ongoing. In the view of this experience, it is very 
likely that the IMO GBS Guidelines will be further improved to become more operational for 
the use in the international environment. 

Figure 8: Overview of the GBS use at IMO 

Polar Code 

IGF Code 

ANEP -77 

Ch.III SOLAS 

Description 

Rationale 
(hazards) 

Expected 
Performance 

√ 

X 

X 

√ 

X 

X 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

X 

√  

(qualitative) 

Source: EMSA, 2017 

Another  existing  model  at  international  level  is  the  ANEP  7736,  a  NATO  goal-based  model 
developed  for  Naval  ships.  This  model  is  quite  robust  and  complete;  however  it  is  too 
complex to be applied to passenger ships of less than 24m and is therefore not described in 
further detail here. 

At  national  level,  the  use  of  the  GBS  model  similar  to  the  one  described  above  has  been 
successfully introduced so far by one Member State, Sweden. Sweden has developed a set of 
goal-based  regulations  for  those  ships  not  falling  under  International  Conventions  or  EU 
legislation. While the structure followed by Sweden is similar to the GBS model, goals  and 
functional  requirements,  i.e.  tiers  I  and  II,  have  been  merged.  Tiers  IV  and  V  are  based  on 
previous existing rules and regulations. Finally, tier III (verification of conformity) includes a 
self-assessment by the ship-owner or shipyard. 

33  
34  
35  
36  

International Code for Ships Operating in Polar Waters. 
International Code of Safety for Ships using Gases or other Low-flashpoint Fuels. 
International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974. 
Allied Naval Engineering Publication ANEP-77, NAVAL SHIP CODE . 

24 

 
 
 
                                                            
Box 4: GBS in Sweden 

Sweden is a pioneer Member State in developing GBS legislation for its national maritime sector. The 
new regulatory framework entered into force in the course of 201737, and the practical experience with 
its implementation is still being collected. 

During  a  Commission/EMSA  fact-finding  mission  in  autumn  201638,  the  Swedish  authorities 
explained  the  three  main  factors  justifying  the  need  for  a  new  regulatory  approach:  (a)  the  current 
legislation is very old and there was a need to update it; (b) some of the technical requirements were 
disproportionate;  and  (c)  there  should  be  room  for  innovation.  The  process  to  develop  the  new 
regulatory framework started in 2013. It was a comprehensive exercise which required a cost-benefit 
analysis and the involvement of more than 100 stakeholders including unions, ship-owners, shipyards, 
fishermen, consultants and other authorities. 

The new legislation is applicable to all ships of 5 meters in length or above used in commercial traffic 
(such  as  passenger,  cargo  and  fishing)  not  covered  under  international  or  EU  legislation  which 
accounts for, approximately, 6,000 Swedish ships. Out of that fleet, around 1,000 ships are nationally 
certified and 5,000 do not carry any certificate.  

The  regulatory  framework  is  structured  in  3  different  layers:  (1)  The  first  establishes  the  general 
functional requirements to be met (includes Tier I and II of the GBS IMO framework); (2) the second 
layer  includes  the  so-called  “general  advice”  which  includes  in  more  detail  the  way  in  which  the 
functional-based requirements can be met (corresponds to Tier III and IV of the IMO framework); and 
(3) finally, the “complementary information” includes additional relevant standards (equivalent to Tier 
V of the IMO system). The ship-owner can choose any established regulation/standards to build the 
ship  (national,  classification  societies,  or  even  from  a  third  country)  fulfilling  the  functional-based 
requirements and present them to the Swedish authorities for approval. 

The key element of the new regulatory framework is the increased responsibility for the safety of the 
ships  by  the  operators.  Each  vessel  has  to  document  how  it  complies  with  the  function-based 
requirements, as well as any limitations to the vessel’s operation. To ensure that such self-monitoring 
is carried out with high quality, there are requirements for a safety management system. This aims to 
ensure that rules and regulations are being followed and that risks within the business are handled. For 
the parts of vessels that are not considered suitable for self-monitoring, the ship-owner has to contact 
an  operator  to  whom  the  Swedish  Transport  Agency  delegated  the  oversight  tasks.  The  Swedish 
Authorities will carry out risk-based oversights. 

In  addition,  an  IT  support  was  created  to  make  it  easier  for  the  industry  to  study  the  regulations, 
supplementary information and general advice, and to make it easy to  carry out self-monitoring  and 
report the results and status of the ship. Through the IT support, ship-owners can also obtain specific 
information intended for their own business and keep themselves up to date with current requirements 
and safety information. 

Source: Sweden, EMSA and Commission, 2016 

37  

38  

Notified measure: http://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-
databases/tris/en/search/?trisaction=search.detail&year=2016&num=683.  
EMSA and Commission joint visit to Sweden in autumn 2016. It should be noted that the procedures 
described at that time may have been adapted during the policy making process afterwards. 

25 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
5.

The proposed Small Passenger Ship Guide39  

The  proposed  Small  Passenger  Ship  Guide  (the  Guide)  provides  for  safety  goals  and 
functional  requirements  for  small  passenger  ships.  It  has  been  inspired  by  the  performance 
based  regulatory  approaches  described  above,  in  particular  the  IMO  GBS  model  and  the 
experience with its application at international and national level. 

The Guide covers: 

 

 

 

 

Ships falling outside the scope of EU passenger ship safety legislation; 

Passenger  ships  below  24  m  in  length  of  any  type  (excluding  high  speed 
passenger craft40) or activity (i.e. regular or seasonal); 

Any building material (steel, aluminium, composite or wood); and 

Ships  sailing  in  the  sea  areas  as  defined  in  Directive  2009/45/EC  (i.e.  sea 
areas A, B, C or D). 

5.1.  Development and main issues 

The first draft of the Guide was developed by EMSA using the existing sources and principles 
and  it  was  further  developed  with  the  relevant  stakeholders  and  experts  from  national 
administrations. More specifically, the following fundamental questions and comments have 
been addressed and clarified in the first consultation round: 

(a)  Status of the Guide: The Guide is non-binding and it is up to each Member State 
to  decide  on  the  use  thereof.  Accordingly,  it  does  not  have  any  legally  binding 
effects or enforcement requirements. 

(b) Material  of  construction:  The  Guide  has  been  drafted  regardless  of  the 

construction material of the ship. 

(c)  Role  of  recognised  organisations  is  intended  to  correspond  to  the  role  these 

organisations have under Directive 2009/45/EC.  

(d) Retroactive use: The Guide has been drafted in respect of new constructions only. 

(e)  Scope/type  of  ships  included:  The  Guide  is  intended  to  have  the  same  scope  as 
Directive  2009/45/EC.  Accordingly,  it  does  not  cover  the  specificities  of  sailing 
ships, tenders, offshore service ships, cable ferries, inland waterways ships, etc. 

(f)  The issue of very small passenger ships was extensively discussed. Some experts 
have  indicated  that  very  small  passenger  ships  might  not  fulfil  some  of  the 

39  

40  

The  Guide  has  been  developed  under  the  working  title  "Small  Craft  Code".  As  suggested  during  the 
consultation, it has been renamed to better reflect its non-binding and non-exhaustive nature, as well as 
the main subject it deals with. 
High  speed  passenger  craft  remains  included  in  Directive  2009/45/EC  and  the  corresponding  safety 
standards driven by the International Code for Safety of High speed Craft. On the other hand, the Guide 
does  not  cover  the  specificities  of  sailing  ships,  tenders,  offshore  service  ships,  cable  ferries,  inland 
waterways ships, etc., which are also excluded from Directive 2009/45/EC. 

26 

 
 
 
                                                            
functional  requirements.  While  recognising  the  validity  of  the  comment,  it  was 
also  observed  that  it  should  be  considered  whether  the  requirement  cannot  be 
fulfilled  in  these  ships  because  there  is  no  physical  space  or  because  the  hazard 
underlying  the  requirement  is  not  applicable  to  that  ship  and  the  requirement  is 
irrelevant. 

If  the  justification  is  only  the  lack  of  sufficient  physical  space,  then  it  is  worth 
reflecting  whether  ships  of  that  size  should  be  allowed  to  be  commercially 
exploitable passenger  ships  in  the EU.  In  addition,  it  should  not  be  the  case  that 
passengers using very small passenger ships are subject to higher risks. 

It  was  finally  concluded  that  if  a  threshold  for  a  particular  requirement  is 
considered appropriate, it would be relevant under Tier IV. 

The  second  draft  of  the  Guide  was  developed  on  the  basis  of  results  of  the  targeted 
consultation  that  aimed  to  get  precise  feedback  from  experts  on  some  of  the  technical 
proposals made in the first consultation round.  

The high number of replies and comments received in the second consultation round reflected 
the interest of experts in this initiative. For some of the questions raised there was almost a 
consensus, like for example the exclusion of ships without a full deck, the need of a simplified 
safety  management  system  adapted  to  this  category  of  ships  and  the  use  by  default  of  the 
definitions  included  in  Directive  2009/45/EC.  However,  for  other  more  technical  subjects 
there  was  significant  divergence  of  views.    Accordingly,  these  issues  were  included  in  the 
second  version  of  the  Guide  with  square  brackets  and  comprehensive  explanations  of  the 
diverging views and a proposed way forward for discussion in the following meetings. 

The  third,  final  version  of  the  Guide  was  developed  after  two  dedicated  meetings  with 
experts, with only two issues left open for final feedback: one related to the application of the 
Marine  Equipment  Directive  (MED)41  and  the  other  to  the  capacity  and  distribution  of 
survival systems.  

(a)  Concerning MED application, it was noted that there was an inconsistency in the 
Guide.  The  MED  was  only  mentioned  for  Chapter  III,  whereas  it  also  affects 
Chapters  II-2,  IV  and  V.  In  order  to  avoid  mentioning  the  MED  in  all  the 
Chapters, it was proposed to make a general reference in Chapter I and to clarify 
the  MED  application  as  follows:  "Except 
justified  exceptional 
circumstances,  marine  equipment  which  complies  with  the  requirements  of 
Directive  2014/90/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  of  the  Council  shall  be 
installed on ships falling within the scope of this Code. In circumstances where the 
competent  flag  State  administration  permits  the  installation  of  equipment  which 
does not comply with the requirements of the above mentioned Directive, it shall 

in  duly 

41  

Directive  2014/90/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  23  July  2014  on  marine 
equipment and repealing Council Directive 96/98/EC (OJ L 257, 28.8.2014, p. 146–185). 

27 

 
 
                                                            
ensure that such equipment provides an equivalent level of safety in the intended 
operational  conditions."  The  application  of  the  MED  to  equipment  installed  on 
board of vessels carrying passengers for commercial purposes will indeed ensure 
the highest safety standards today available. 

(b) The experts agreed to keep sufficient survival system capacity to accommodate all 
persons on board, should one of the survival systems be lost. On the other hand, 
there  was  extensive  discussion  on  the  capacity  to  be  provided  on  each  side  if 
survival systems intended to be thrown over board could not be transferred from 
side  to  side.  The  latter  principle  has  therefore  been  written  as  a  more  general 
functional  requirement  and  worded  as  follows:  "Each  ship  must  carry  survival 
systems distributed throughout the ship with sufficient capacity, such that, in the 
event that any one survival system is lost or rendered unserviceable, the remaining 
survival systems can accommodate the total number of persons the ship is certified 
to carry. The distribution, deployment arrangements and capacity of the survival 
systems  shall  allow  all  persons  that  the  ship  is  certified  to  carry  to  be 
accommodated on either side of the ship."42  

The feedback on the final version of the Guide did not bring any new insights that would not 
have  been  already  raised  and  jointly  discussed.  More  specifically,  three  Member  State's 
experts  commented  on  the  final  version  of  the  Guide.  These  additional  comments  related 
either  to  further  editorial  improvements  or  clarifications  of  the  text  (which  have  been 
accepted),  or  to  the  already  expressed  disagreement  with  specific  parts  of  the  Guide  or  its 
entirety.43  

5.2. 

Structure  

The  structure  of  the  Guide  follows  the  safety  categories  and  sub-categories  in  existing 
maritime  codes.  An  alternative  of  identifying  new  safety  categories  and  sub-categories  on 
basis of a hazard identification (HAZID) exercise has been discarded because it was unlikely 
that  they  would  be  different  from  those  already  existing  for  passenger  ships  in  general 
(stability, fire safety etc.).  

The  Guide  corresponds  to  the  first  two  tiers  of  the  IMO  GBS  framework  (i.e.  goals  and 
functional requirements) and it was developed around the following structure: 

(a)  Safety category (Chapter), e.g. fire safety 

(i)  Safety sub-category (Regulation), e.g., ignition, including: 

1.  Functional requirement 

2.  Hazard addressed 

3.  Performance requirement 

42  

43  

This requirement does not necessarily mean that 100% capacity is needed on each side of the ship. It is 
possible to use survival systems which could be deployed from either side of the ship. 
For more details on the consultation of experts, see Annexes 2 and 3. 

28 

 
 
                                                            
5.2.1.  Tier I: Goals 

According to the IMO GBS  Guidelines44, Goals  are defined as  “High-level  objectives to  be 
met. A goal should address the issue(s) of concern and reflect the required level of safety”. 

In practice however, the concrete examples of goals showed that it can be rather difficult to 
define  them  in  a  sufficiently  specific  way  to  reflect  the  level  of  safety.  For  example,  in  the 
Polar Code it is stated that:  "The goal of this chapter is to ensure adequate subdivision and 
stability  in  both  intact  and  damaged  conditions."45  From  this  wording  it  is  difficult  to 
conclude the required level of safety. Goals, by their own nature, are very broad and can be 
therefore  expressed  in  general  terms  only.  Accordingly,  the  process  to  verify  that  the 
functional  requirements  (Tier  II)  cover  all  the  areas  of  the  goal  (Tier  I)  can  be  rather 
subjective.  

As the experience at international level has shown, defining a separate layer of goals for each 
specific functional requirement could risk keeping the discussion too theoretical and delaying 
the entire process for relatively little added value. Accordingly, and in line with the Swedish 
approach, in the Guide the goals and functional requirements have been merged (Tiers I and 
II).  Nonetheless,  and  on  the  basis  of  the  feedback  from  experts,  a  number  of  general  goals 
have been designed for the Guide in its entirety (rather than for each requirement). 

It should be also noted that the development of the GBS framework is iterative. It might be 
the case that if Tier IV is introduced, some of the functional or performance requirements may 
need to be amended, no longer needed or some may be missing.  

5.2.2.  Tier II: Functional requirements 

The functional requirements follow the approach of the IMO guidelines46, according to which 
functional requirements should: 

1.  cover all areas necessary to meet the goal; 

2.  address all relevant hazards; 

3.  provide  the  criteria  for  compliance  with  the  goal,  i.e.  the  criteria  against 

which regulations and rules are justified/verified by tier III; 

4.  be  independent  from  technical  realisation  for  leaving  space  for  further 

technological development; and 

5.  clearly describe what function has to be achieved. 

44  
45  
46  

MSC.1/Circ.1394 Rev.1. 
Polar Code, Part I-A, Regulation 4.1: Goal. 
MSC.1/Circ.1394/Rev.1 Generic guidelines for developing IMO goal-based standards. 

29 

 
 
 
                                                            
Furthermore,  functional  requirements  should  be  formulated  considering  the  following  three 
elements: 

1.  Description: a specific and short explanation of the required function; 

2.  Rationale:  assignment  of  hazards  to  be  mitigated  by  the  function  under 

consideration; and 

3.  Expected  performance:  description  of 

in 
quantitative  terms.  This  description  should  cover  all  aspect  necessary  for 
verifying  compliance  and  the  conditions  under  which  these  have  to  be 
reached. 

the  necessary 

function 

In  the  Guide,  the  functional  requirements  have  been  extracted  from  or  inspired  by  existing 
sources  and  experiences  described  earlier.  For  example,  for  the  requirements  on  fire  safety 
and radio  communication, the functional requirements identified in  SOLAS were  taken as a 
basis.  Requirements  on  life-saving  appliances  have  been  inspired  by  the  ongoing  work  at 
IMO.  For  stability,  freeboard,  structure,  power,  propulsion  etc.,  the  functional  requirements 
included  in  the  Swedish  Code  and  in  ANEP  77  were  taken  into  consideration.  Where 
available,  the  same  sources  were  used  to  establish  the  hazards  addressed  and  the 
corresponding  performance  requirements.  The  wording  of  the  functional  requirements  has 
been  fine-tuned  together  with  the  experts,  as  described  above  and  in  Annex.  In  case  of 
diverging  views,  the  solution  supported  by  the  majority  of  experts  has  been  retained, 
highlighting  the  potential  of  the  Guide  to  be  used,  further  developed  and  adapted  to  local 
operational conditions as Member States may see fit for purpose. 

As a matter of principle, the Guide has been carefully worded to avoid, as much as possible, 
qualitative  wording  and  specific  technical  solutions  (to  avoid  ambiguity  and  not  to  hinder 
innovation).  

Finally, the Guide was subjected to the Commission's inter-service consultation, during which 
it has been reviewed from the legal perspective and the specific risks related to batteries from 
propulsion  have  been  added,  as  well  as  the  reference  to  Galileo  which  offers  services  with 
hundreds meters accuracy in identifying a vessel in distress and a very short reaction time.  

6.

Next steps 

From  the  perspective  of  economic  operators  involved  in  the  building  of  and  trading  in 
passenger  ships  below  24  meters  in  length,  the  consultation  has  shown  that  they  consider 
common EU safety requirements to have potentially a very positive or positive impact on the 
internal market with small passenger ships.   

Further  development  of  the  recommended  performance  based  framework  would  necessitate 
the identification and assessment of alternative options and the possible impacts thereof. The 
basis for such options could be the various regulatory schemes already known and described 

30 

 
 
 
 
above,  ranging  from  the  IMO  GBS  tiered  approach  to  the  EU  New  Approach  (as  used  for 
example in the case of recreational craft) and combinations thereof.  

In particular, the experts highlighted the importance of demonstrating and verifying that the 
detailed standards conform to the functional requirements. This element presents a necessary 
condition for a fully functioning performance based regulatory framework and acts as a bridge 
between the general principles and more detailed requirements. This is embedded both in the 
IMO GBS approach (as the verification of conformity in Tier III) and the EU New Approach 
(as the conformity assessment). 

31 

 
 
 
 
 
Annex 1: Summary of online consultation on safety goals and functional requirements 
for small passenger ships 

The objective of this consultation targeted at economic operators involved in building of and 
trading  in  passenger  ships  below  24  meters  in  length  was  to  collect  views  of  economic 
operators on the extent to which common EU rules for small passenger ships could facilitate 
the  internal  market  with  small  passenger  ships.  The  consultation  also  aimed  at  gathering 
anecdotal evidence in support thereof. 

Consultation period 

Stakeholders  had  4  months  to  provide  their  replies,  with  the  deadline  initially  set  on  30 
October 2017 and extended to 30 November 2017. 

Format and process followed 

The questionnaire consisted of three main parts: respondent details, new built small passenger 
ships,  second-hand  market  with  small  passenger  ships,  general  comments  and  finally  the 
possibility to attach relevant documents.  All contributions were submitted through the online 
questionnaire, which was ultimately made available in all official languages of the EU.  

Replies  

Replies were provided in total by 43 respondents from 13 Member States. More specifically, 
respondents from BE, DE, DK, ES, FI, FR, IE, LUX, MT, NL, RO, SE, UK participated in 
the consultation. Out of the 43 respondents, 37 respondents belonged to the targeted category 
of  economic  operators  or  passengers.  It  should  be  noted  that  out  of  the  37  respondents,  3 
replied  under  the  name  of  the  same  entity,  namely  ARMAM  (Armateurs  de  vedettes  à 
passagers manche atlantique méditerranée). Although these 3 replies were similar, they were 
not identical and are therefore reported separately. 

In  addition,  5  replies  were  provided  by  national  maritime  authorities;  these  replies  are 
summarised under a separate heading at the end of this Annex. Their input has been assessed 
and  taken  into  consideration,  but  it  has  not  been  included  in  the  statistics  that  will  be 
presented  below.  These  have  been  limited  to  the  respondents  from  the  targeted  category  of 
economic operators or passengers. The results are presented on a question by question basis, 
following the same order as in the questionnaire.  

Finally, 1 reply was submitted under the research and academia category. However, given that 
this respondent indicated under all questions "Don’t know", this reply is not included in the 
statistics below. 

32 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Results  

A. Respondent details 

Question  1  identified  on  behalf  of  which  organisation  the  respondents  replied.  It  should  be 
noted that most respondents identified themselves under more than one category; therefore the 
grouping below is only indicative. 

Organisation 

Ship  owners/Ship  operators/Ship 
designers/Ship 
yards/Charterers/Passengers 
Consultancies 
Classification societies  

34 
2 
1 

Questions 2, 3, 4, 6 and 8(1) related to more specific details about the respondent's identity, 
namely  the  name,  registration  in  the  EU  Transparency  Register,  e-mail  address  and  the 
agreement to publish the response either in its entirety or on an anonymous basis. Individual 
replies  have  been  published  accordingly  on 
following  consultation  website: 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/consultations/targeted-consultation-safety-goals-and-functional-
requirements-small-passenger-ships_en 

the 

Question 5 aimed at identifying the type and size of the enterprise. It can be observed that the 
large  majority  of  respondents  are  micro  or  small  enterprises,  which  corresponds  well  to  the 
targeted sector of small passenger ships owners or operators. 

The size of the enterprise 

Medium enterprise (50-249 
employees) 
Micro enterprise (1-9 employees) 
Other 
Self-employed 
Small enterprise (10-49 employees) 
No response given  

3 
17 
3 
4 
   847 
2 

Question  7  gave  the  overview  of  the  Member  States  where  respondents  lived  or  were 
established, namely BE, DE, DK, ES, FI, FR, IE, LUX, MT, NL, RO, SE and UK. 

BE 
DE 
DK 
ES 

47  

Country of origin 

1 
1 
1 
1 

This should be in fact 7, given that ARMAM was also identified under the category OTHER. 

33 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
FI 
FR 
IE 
MT 
NL 
RO 
SE 
UK 

2 
12 
5 
5 
3 
1 
3 
2 

B. New built small passenger ships 

The  first  part  of  the  questionnaire  focused  on  internal  potential  for  newly  built  small 
passenger ships. 

Question 8(2) asked the respondents to indicate, in their view, to what extent the existence of 
common EU safety requirements would positively influence the decision of buyers to procure 
a newly built small passenger ship from a ship-yard located in another EU Member State. 15 
respondents  indicated  strong  influence,  17  answered  moderate  influence,  2  indicated  low 
influence and 1 replied no influence. 2 respondents did not know. 

The large majority of respondents provided further explanations to their answers. Additional 
comments  related  to  the  strong  or  moderate  positive  influence  highlighted  the  potential  of 
common  EU  rules  to  facilitate  the  procurement  process,  eliminate  red  tape,  overcome  the 
stringent  national  certification  rules  creating  de  facto  monopoly  on  the  national  market, 
reduce  the  complexity  and  resource  intensity  of  the  upgrade  to  national  rules,  or  avoid 
disproportionate  national  legislation  and  reduce  (albeit  not  completely  eliminate)  language 
barriers.  Positive  impact  on  confidence,  consistency  and  surveyors'  work  has  been  also 
mentioned. 

The replies indicating low or no influence noted that the main driver is cost and that designers 
and yards design and build the ship to meet the rules of the country in which it will operate. It 
was also noted that in the case of small ships in particular, the second hand market is more 
important than the new builds.  

Impact of common EU rules on the 
decision of buyers to procure a newly 
built small passenger ship in another EU 
Member State 

Strong influence 
Moderate influence 
Low influence 
No influence 
Don't know 

15 
17 
2 
1 
2 

34 

 
 
 
 
Question 9 aimed at finding out how the existence of common EU safety requirements would 
impact the design and construction of a new small passenger ship for a client from another EU 
Member  State.  7  replies  indicated  very  positive  impact  and  27  replies  positive  impact.  No 
respondent indicated neutral or negative impact.  

Respondents  were  also  asked  to  provide  a  concrete  example  of  such  impact.  The  following 
very positive or positive impact of common EU rules has been indicated (without any order of 
preference): 

- Opening national markets to competitive operators from other Member States, increasing the 
offer for the clients possibly at lower price. 
-  Less  time  spent  studying  each  rule  for  each  country,  standardization  of  equipment  etc., 
leading to lower cost.  
-  Positive  impact  on  safety  in  those  Member  States  without  detailed  requirements,  creating 
level playing field across the board. 
- Confidence of the client from other Member State that he will not face major problems and 
costs to refit the ship to local standards. 
-  Easier  to  move  ships  between  Member  States  because  of  common  safety  level  and 
understanding between the different authorities. 
- Better regulation avoiding excessive requirements may have a positive impact on renewing 
the  fleet  where  aging  and  often  less  suitable  vessels  are  kept  in  operation  longer  than  they 
should. 

Impact of common EU safety 
requirements on the design and 
construction of a new small passenger 
ship for a client from another EU 
Member State 

Very positive impact 
Positive impact 
No impact 
Negative impact 
Very negative impact 
Don't know  

7 
27 
0 
0 
0 
4 

Question 10 asked to which extent the common EU safety requirements for small passenger 
ships,  based  on  a  functional  requirements  framework,  could  foster  innovation  in  the  ship 
building  industry.  9  respondents  indicated  a  high  extent,  14  replied  a  medium  extent,  4 
respondents indicated a low extent and 7 replied not at all. There were 2 respondents who did 
not know and one who gave no response. 

The respondents who indicated a high or medium impact of common EU rule on innovation 
highlighted  the  added  value  of  goal  driven  regulation,  importance  of  keeping  up  with  the 
technological progress and new approaches, clarity and common level of safety requirements 
that  the new designs would have  to meet, as  well as  the increase in  competition that would 

35 

 
 
 
 
drive innovation. It was however also pointed out that innovation is many times too costly for 
a small series of ships of this size. It maybe therefore bigger shipyards who could invest in 
innovative designs rather that the majority of small yards.  

For the replies of a low or no extent, the respondents noted that there is little flexibility in the 
current designs that have evolved for a reason and that the current legislation is so restrictive 
that it hinders innovation. This latest remark is interesting because it is in fact the objective of 
the  common  EU  rules  based  on  functional  requirements  to  overcome  such  effect  of 
prescriptive rules. 

To which extent could the common EU 
safety requirements for small passenger 
ships, based on a functional 
requirements framework, foster 
innovation in the ship building 
industry? 

To a high extent 
To a medium extent 
To a low extent 
Not at all 
Don't know 
No response given 

9 
14 
4 
7 
2 
1 

Question 11 enquired about the impact the existence of common EU safety requirements for 
small  passenger  ships  would  have  on  competition  in  the  ship  building  industry.  27 
respondents indicated a moderate increase in competition, while 6 replied that there would be 
no impact on competition or even moderate decrease (2 replies).  

The respondents who indicated a moderate increase in competition noted different production 
costs in Member States, including social cost (also the notion of increased "social dumping" 
was mentioned). It was also mentioned that it would be easier for yards in all Member States 
to participate in tenders and reduce national protection to local industries.  

Those who replied that there would be no impact on competition noted that in case of small 
passenger ships, a large part of the selection of a designer is prior experience in working with 
and  trust  in  the  designer,  as  well  as  that  shipyards  should  be  able  to  build  ships  to  any 
specification another yard can build. Concerning the replies indicating moderate decrease in 
competition, there seems to be an uncertainty concerning the impact on smaller shipyards in 
case adhering to the new rules or standards proves to be an expensive or difficult process. 

36 

 
 
 
 
 
What impact would the existence of 
common EU safety requirements for 
small passenger ships have on 
competition in the ship building 
industry? 

Strong increase in competition 
Moderate increase in competition 
No impact on competition 
Moderate decrease in competition 
Strong decrease in competition 
Don't know  

 0 
27 
 6 
2 
0 
2 

C. Second-hand market with small passenger ships 

The  second  part  of  the  questionnaire  focused  on  internal  potential  for  second  hand  market 
with small passenger ships. 

Question 12 aimed at finding out to what extent the existence of different standards in each 
EU Member State present a trade barrier to sell or buy an existing small passenger ship to or 
from  another  EU  Member  State.  14  respondents  replied  to  a  high  extent,  11  to  a  medium 
extent and 9 to a low extent.  

Respondents were also asked to provide a concrete example of such trade barrier. Those who 
indicated a high or medium impact mentioned several specific or general examples of those 
barriers, such as: 

- Any boat not built under Irish department supervision is restricted to operate 3 miles from 
land. Very costly modifications to a vessel bought in France and imported to Ireland. 
- Germany demands catalysers to be fitted, France does not. 
- Different requirements in flag registration, endowment or technical fitness assessment.  
- Differences in the requirements for safety equipment on board, making it difficult to change 
the flag of commercial charter boats between Member States. 
-  It  is  sometimes  not  only  very  costly  to  adapt  the  vessel  to  conform  with  local  rules  but 
physically impossible. 
- The new flag State refusing to accept a ship built in another Member State for fundamental 
rule compliance reasons. 

Those  who  replied  that  different  national  standards  present  a  trade  barrier  to  a  low  extent 
provided a specific example of ships built in France that face no problems to be sold to other 
Member States given the stringency of the French standards. It was however noted that for the 
same reason, the situation is more difficult for ships imported to France. 

37 

 
 
 
 
To what extent the existence of different 
standards in each EU Member State 
present a trade barrier to sell or buy an 
existing small passenger ship to or from 
another EU Member State? 

To a high extent 
To a medium extent 
To a low extent  
Not at all 
Don't know  

14 
11 
9 
0 
3 

Question 13a enquired about the significance of the cost of additional technical modifications 
that  have  to  be  done  in  order  to  be  adapted  to  importing  Member  State's  regulatory 
requirements  when  transferring  a  small  passenger  ship  between  EU  Member  States.  16 
respondents  classified  such  cost  as  highly  significant  and  13  respondents  as  significant.  7 
replies indicated  that  such  cost  is  less  significant  and  no reply  indicated  that  they  would  be 
insignificant. Also, there is one reply with don't know. 

The  concrete  examples  of  technical  modifications  deemed  to  be  highly  significant  or 
significant  included  the  cost  and  fitting  of  a  catalyser  (ca  EUR  10000);  new  equipment 
including  new  life  rafts,  radar  reflectors,  extra  flares  etc.  plus  cost  for  new  inspections  (ca 
EUR 10000); comparison between a specific national and EU standard requires an additional 
investment of ca EUR 80000; safety equipment and safety standards as well as fire prevention 
and  firefighting  standards  that  are  "miles  apart"  in  different  Member  States;  high  risk  of 
unforeseen  modifications;  significant  cost  to  modify  a  ship  construction  regarding  e.g.  hull 
strength. 

Similarly to question 12, the respondents who replied that such cost is less significant referred 
to the stringency of existing French standards. 

When transferring a small passenger 
ship between EU Member States, how 
significant is the cost of additional 
technical modifications that have to be 
done in order to be adapted to importing 
Member State's regulatory 
requirements? 

Highly significant  
Significant 
Less significant 
Insignificant 
Don't know 

16 
13 
7 
0 
1 

38 

 
 
 
 
Question  13b  refers  to  the  significance  of  administrative  cost  of  re-certifying  the  ship  in 
accordance  with  the  importing  Member  State's  regulatory  requirements  when  transferring  a 
small  passenger  ship  between  EU  Member  States.  10  respondents  classified  such  cost  as 
highly significant and 17 respondents as significant. 3 replies indicated that such cost is less 
significant and 2 replies indicated that they would be insignificant. There were 4 replies given 
with don't know and 1 respondent did not give any reply. 

The  concrete  examples  of  such  cost  deemed  to  be  highly  significant  or  significant  included 
stability  and  safety  surveys;  transfer  and  certification  fees;  non-quantifiable  cost  of  "total 
confusion", the waiting and processing time, language differences and the lack of knowledge 
of the permission procedures in different Member States. It was also highlighted that it often 
depends on the good will of the receiving national administration. 

Some  of  the  respondents  indicating  this  cost  to  be  insignificant  mentioned  an  example  of  a 
small surveying fee or identified, more generally, the re-certification cost to be typically well 
below 1-3% of the vessel costs.  

 When transferring a small passenger 
ship between EU Member States, how 
significant in your opinion is the 
administrative cost of re-certifying the 
ship in accordance with the importing 
Member State's regulatory 
requirements? 

Highly significant  
Significant 
Less significant 
Insignificant 
Don’t know 
No response given 

10 
17 
 3 
 2 
 4 
 1 

Question 14 enquired about the impact the existence of common EU safety requirements for 
small passenger ships would have on the opportunity to export these ships to third countries. 8 
replies indicated  a  strong  increase and  16  replies  a  moderate  increase. No  impact  on  export 
opportunities  was  indicated  by  9  respondents.  1  respondent  indicated  a  strong  decrease  in 
export opportunity and 3 did not know. 

In their additional comments, the respondents who replied that common EU rules would have 
a strong or moderate positive impact on the export opportunity to third countries, noted that 
third  countries  may  accept  vessels  built  under  common  EU  rules  without  additional  costs; 
consider it as a mark of quality and use it as a standard for their vessels. It was however also 
highlighted that the ships need to be adapted to different climatic conditions in third countries.  

Some of the replies that indicated no impact on export opportunities were further explained by 
experience  that  EU  builds  are  primarily  searched  for  their  quality,  aesthetics  and  design 

39 

 
 
 
innovation  rather  than  their  safety  certification  and  that  the  French  builds  have  already  a 
strong image abroad (especially in Africa). The respondent who indicated strong decrease in 
export opportunity explained that this would be the case for the French yards facing increased 
competition from other Member States with lower costs. 

What impact would the existence of 
common EU safety requirements for 
small passenger ships have on the 
opportunity to export these ships to 
third countries? 

Strong increase in export 
opportunities 
Moderate increase in export 
opportunities 
No impact on export opportunities 
Moderate decrease in export 
opportunities 
Strong decrease in export 
opportunities 
Don’t know 

8 

16 
9 

0 

1 
3 

D. General comments 

In  most  of  their general comments, the respondents reiterated their position indicated in  the 
specific  questions,  expressing  their  support  for  common  EU  rules  or  adding  other  specific 
comments.  Importantly,  it  was  stressed  that  any  common  EU  rules  should  not  re-invent  the 
wheel and should be sufficiently flexible to allow for local operating conditions and expertise 
to be well reflected. On the other hand, it was also noted that Member States should not make 
additional  restrictions.  Specific  comments  were  also  expressed  in  relation  to  charter  vessels 
and crew qualifications. 

National maritime administrations 

the  questionnaire  were 

Replies  on 
also  provided  by  4  national  maritime 
authorities/administrations  (from  LUX,  FI,  NL  and  FR)  and  can  be  briefly  summarised  as 
follows.  In  addition,  1  national  authority  (from  FI)  submitted  a  position  paper  that  is 
summarised at the end of this section. 

Regarding  the  newly  built  small  passenger  ships,  the  national  administrations  were  of  the 
view  that  common  EU  rules  would  have  a  strong  or  moderate  positive  influence  on  the 
decision of buyers to procure a newly built small passenger ship from a ship-yard located in 
another  EU  Member  State  (question  8(2)),  highlighting  positive  impact  on  the  competition, 
level  playing  field  and  the  second  hand  market,  its  value  and  the  transfer  of  ships  between 
Member  States.  Similarly  to  the  comments  from  economic  operators,  it  was  also  noted  that 
"Common safety requirements, especially adopted for small ships, would promote investment 

40 

 
 
 
in  commercially  profitable  new  buildings.  Excessive  new  building  requirements  prevent 
regeneration of vessel fleet." 

Concerning the impact of common  EU rules  on the design and construction  of a new small 
passenger  ship  for  a  client  from  another  EU  Member  State  (question  9),  national 
administration  considered  that  such  impact  would  be  positive  or  very  positive,  commenting 
that excessive requirements for small ships are too costly and prevent operators from making 
investments into new ships and that common rules would ensure a common safety level and 
provide a certainty for the clients to transfer the vessel across the EU.  

The  replies  of  the  national  administration  were  more  nuanced  on  the  possible  impact  of 
common  EU  rules  on  innovation  (question  10),  with  2  replies  arguing  for  high  positive 
impact, 1 for low impact and 1 did not know. There was nonetheless an agreement that goal 
based rules have in principle a positive impact on innovation. The situation was similar for the 
question on competition (question 11), with 1 reply indicating no impact of common EU rules 
on competition, 2 replies for moderate increase in competition and 1 did not know. Comments 
referred also to higher performant and less polluting ships. 

The existence of different standards in each EU Member State was considered to be a trade 
barrier  (question  12)  by  all  responding  national  administrations,  either  to  a  high  extent  (1 
response) or a medium extent (3 responses), highlighting that "different rules in each Member 
State cause additional work, risks and administrative burdens in flag changes", even making 
the transfer impossible.  

Concerning the cost of additional technical modifications that have to be done in order to be 
adapted  to  importing  Member  State's  regulatory  requirements  (question  13a),  2  national 
administrations  replied  that  they  do  not  know,  while  the  opinion  of  the  two  other  ones  was 
very divergent – 1 replying that such cost is very significant while the other replies that it is 
insignificant  (noting  that  only  vessels  easily  adaptable  to  the  national  rules  in  question  are 
transferred in the first place). It was noted that this is always a case by case situation and the 
cost  cannot  be  therefore  estimated  but  it  may  be  so  high  for  the  transfer  to  become 
impractical. 

Similar  divergence  in  replies  concerned  the  question  on  the  administrative  cost  of  re-
certifying  the  vessels  (question  13b),  with  the  replies  ranging  from  don’t  know  to  less 
significant (indicating cost of EUR 350/hour), highly significant (providing examples of noise 
measurement reports and asbestos that are in some cases missing) and insignificant (recalling 
that only vessels easily adaptable to the national rules in question are transferred in the first 
place  but  recognising  that  common  EU  rules  would  facilitate  the  re-certification  of  such 
vessels).  

The impact of common  EU rules  on the opportunity to export these ships to  third countries 
(question  13)  was  considered  moderate  by  1  national  administration  (noting  that  "high  EU 
level  safety  standards  offered  to  reasonable  cost  would  be  attractive  also  to  third  country 

41 

 
 
buyers"), with 2 respondents identifying no impact (noting that these countries use their own 
rules) and 1 did not know (commenting that common EU rules may could possibly become a 
reference standard internationally and hence facilitate export).  

In their general comments, the national administration highlighted that the new rules should 
be  built  on  existing  national  experiences  and  applicable  to  new  ships  only  (and  possibly 
voluntary  for  existing  vessels  to  facilitate  second  hand  market)  and  in  any  case  should  not 
increase the cost of newbuilds; and called for sailing ships to be included in the common EU 
rules. 

Finally,  one  national  administration  (from  FI)  submitted  a  position  paper  in  which  it 
expressed  its  support  for  common  EU  rules  that  should  be  developed  in  such  a  way  as  to 
enable  the  single  market  to  operate  effectively,  whilst  leaving  enough  room  for  their 
adaptation to national circumstances. It was also stressed that such rules should apply to new 
builds only. Importance of automation, safety for persons with reduced mobility and reduction 
of administrative burdens was also mentioned. 

42 

 
 
 
 
Annex 2: Overview of targeted consultation carried out in the framework of the 
Passenger Ship Safety Expert Group  

1.  Introduction 

The first draft of the Small Passenger Ship Guide was developed by EMSA using the sources 
and principles described in the chapter dedicated to the GBS. However, there was a need to 
improve it in conjunction with the relevant stakeholders who will use it in practice: Member 
States administrations and industry. 

Accordingly, a group of consulting technical experts was created within the framework of the 
Passenger Ship Safety Expert Group. This Group is constituted by experts in passenger ship 
safety from the relevant bodies of the Member States administrations and observers from the 
maritime industry. 

Several  consultation  rounds  and  meetings/workshops  were  carried  out  according  to  the 
following calendar: 

TASK 

st

1

 Consultation round 

Start Date 

20 March 

End Date 

28 April 

PSS Expert Group Meeting 
(Brussels) 

nd

2

 Consultation round 

30 March 

30 March 

29 June 

4 September 

Circulation of 2nd version  

16 October 

16 October 

PSS Expert Group Meeting 
(Brussels) 

23 October  

23

 October 

Workshop on SCC (Lisbon) 

13 November 

13 November 

Draft Final Guide circulated 

30 November 

12 December 

Final Guide 

20 December 

20 December 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
2.  First round of consultation 

The first consultation started on 20 March and consisted in the circulation of the first draft of 
the  Guide.  The  experts  were  requested  to  provide  comments  on  the  first  draft,  particularly 
concerning: 

a)  The  structure  of  the Guide,  including  the  safety  categories  and  sub-categories,  functional 
requirements, addressed hazards and the corresponding performance requirements. 

b)  Initial  feedback  on  the  substance  of  the  identified  functional  and  performance 
requirements. 

The  first  draft  was  introduced  in  a  meeting  with  the  experts  on  30  March  2017  within  the 
framework of the Passenger Ship Safety Expert Group. Following this meeting, experts had a 
four week period to provide feedback. 

In total, 13 experts from Member States replied and 3 observers from the industry. The replies 
allowed  to  conclude  an  agreement  on  the  structure  of  the  Guide,  although  they  included 
several  fundamental  questions  (reported  in  Chapter  5  of  this  Staff  Working  Document)  and 
provided detailed technical comments to the Guide. 

3.  Second round of consultation 

In  view  of  the  feedback  provided  in  the  first  consultation,  it  was  decided  that  the  main 
purpose  of  the  second  consultation  should  be  the  clarification  of  the  fundamental  issues 
raised.  In  addition,  to  continue  the  progress  on  the  technical  side,  some  of  the  technical 
matters  raised  by  the  experts  during  the  first  consultation  were  also  included  in  that  round. 
Finally, experts were provided with the opportunity to comment to the first draft of the Guide 
if they had not done so yet. 

The second consultation was framed around a questionnaire with 42 questions to get precise 
feedback from experts in  the fundamental questions and on some of the technical proposals 
made by experts. In addition, a second document was circulated including 57 comments from 
EMSA explaining why some of the proposals had not been included in the questionnaire so 
that there was full transparency and could be contested if appropriate. 

To reply it was provided a period of 9 weeks as the summer season was in the middle of this 
consultation. In total, 14 experts from Member States replied together with 4 observers. This 
meant processing more than 750 replies and more than 400 specific comments. 

The results of the questionnaire were sent to all the experts together with the comments in an 
excel  file  to  ensure  transparency  together  with  a  brief  quantitative  analysis  as  shown  in  the 
following excerpt: 

44 

 
 
As it can be noted, for each question, the relevant percentages were shown first considering 
only the members of the group, i.e., experts from Member States, and then considering also 
the input from the observers. This analysis provided a good overview to the group of experts 
on the results of the questionnaire and ensured that any expert had access to the views of the 
others. 

The  high  number  of  replies  and  comments  received  reflected  the  interest  of  experts  in  this 
initiative. For some of the questions raised there was almost a consensus, while for other more 
technical subjects there was an important divergence of views. Accordingly, these issues were 
included  in  the  second  version  of  the  Guide  with  square  brackets  and  comprehensive 
explanations  of  the  diverging  views  and  proposing  a  way  forward  to  be  discussed  in  the 
following meetings. Summary of this consultation feedback is provided in Annex 3. 

4.  Third round of consultation 

Based  on  the  results  of  the  questionnaire,  EMSA  prepared  a  second  version  of  the  Guide 
which  was  circulated  to  the  experts  on  16  October.  In  this  second  version,  all  the 
modifications, including minor editorials, were provided in track changes with respect to the 
first version to facilitate the revision. In some instances, explanatory footnotes were added to 
explain the origin of the proposals.  

Each  regulation  changed  included  an  explanatory  box  with  the  results  of  the  last 
questionnaire, a brief explanation of the subject and the implication in the document. In the 
occasions  where  expert  comments  were  conflicting  to  each  other  the  majority  criteria  was 
taken  as  a  basis  to  modify  the  Guide.  However,  all  the  comments  were  analysed  and  taken 
into consideration.  

45 

 
 
 
Some  experts  provided  new  proposals  on  aspects  not  included  in  the  questionnaire.  Such 
proposals  were  included  with  a  footnote  or  in  square  brackets  so  that  they  could  be  easily 
identified and discussed during the meetings. 

This second version was discussed in detail, regulation per regulation, during two meetings. 
The first took place on 23 October 2017 within the framework of the Passenger Ship Safety 
Expert  Group.  In  this  meeting  the  group  went  through  all  the  results  of  the  questionnaire, 
modifications and proposals related to the first two chapters of the Guide.  

Following this meeting, EMSA circulated to the group of experts a note on 27 October 2017, 
summarising  the  technical  discussions  on  the  second  version  of  the  Small  Passenger  Ship 
Guide  to  facilitate  the  forthcoming  discussion  in  the  second  meeting,  a  dedicated  workshop 
held  at  EMSA  premises  in  Lisbon  on  13  November  2017.  In  addition,  the  note  provided  a 
deadline  to  provide  additional  written  comments  until  6  November  2017.  Three  Member 
States  took  advantage  of  this  opportunity  and  provided  comments  in  writing  before  the 
workshop which were processed and presented to the group for further consideration. Another 
Member State provided editorial comments after the workshop. 

During  the  workshop,  the  group  of  experts  went  through  the  results,  modifications  and 
proposals of the remaining chapters of the Guide and came back to the issues left open of the 
first two chapters. 

5.  Finalisation of the Guide 

Two  matters  remained  open  after  the  workshop:  one  related  to  the  status  of  the  shipborne 
equipment  under  the  scope  of  Directive  2014/90/EU  (Marine  Equipment  Directive)  and  the 
other related to the capacity and distribution of survival systems. During the meeting it was 
agreed  that  EMSA  would  prepare  a  draft  final  version  of  the  Guide  with  editorial 
improvements and two proposals for the two above-mentioned topics based on the discussions 
held in the workshop. 

EMSA circulated the draft final version of the Guide on 30 November with a deadline to reply 
12 December. 

Three Member State's experts sent comments before that deadline. The comments referred to 
editorial improvements were introduced in the text. With regards  to the two open issues, no 
comment was received on the proposal for the capacity and distribution of survival systems.  

As for the MED application, one national expert indicated that there was a conflict between 
the text proposed and the MED as it provided too much flexibility (however such a conflict 
was  not  found).  Another  national  expert  indicated  the  contrary,  that  more  flexibility  was 
needed as the text proposed contradicted the national legislation. In view of these diverging 
views  and  considering  that  only  two  Member  States  commented  on  this  issue,  the  wording 
was retained as proposed.  

Finally,  the  comments  which  insisted  on  points  that  had  been  already  raised  during  the 
consultation and that had not found sufficient support within the PSS Expert Group were not 
taken on board. This included comments related to specific national circumstances that could 
be addressed at national level through specific additional safety measures if necessary.  

46 

 
 
 
Annex 3: Summary of replies to the questionnaire on the Small Passenger Ship Guide 

This Annex provides a summary of the replies to the questionnaire circulated to the members 
and observers of the Passenger Ship Safety Expert Group in the second consultation round on 
the Small Passenger Ship Guide (described in more general in Annex 2). 

Questions related to Chapter I 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

The  first  question  was  referred  to  the  inclusion  under  the  scope  of  open  (undecked) 
ships.  The  large  majority  of  the  Member  States  expressed  their  opinion  that  open 
(undecked) ships should be out of the scope of the Guide: 67%. When the opinion of 
observers is included the proportion increases to 75%. Accordingly, open ships were 
left out of the scope. 

With regard to  the sea areas model, about 60% of Member States  preferred a model 
based  on  Directive  2009/45  versus  31%  who  preferred  a  flexible  model  with 
operational conditions to be defined for each ship. When considering the observers as 
well, the overall proportion changed to 47% in favour of the 2009/45 model and 41% 
in favour of the operational conditions.  

Considering the tight margin, the final text agreed is broad. On the one hand it accepts 
the  fact  that  the  standards  of  the  ship  will  depend  on  the  specific  operational 
conditions  and  on  the  other  hand  does  not  really  specify  the  way  in  which  those 
conditions are to be defined, i.e., rigid or flexible model, so as to leave space for this 
aspect being defined at Tier IV stage. 

About 55% of the Member States supported the introduction of a Safety Management 
System (SMS) in the Guide. When including the observers, the proportion increased to 
almost 65%. Accordingly, the SMS was included. However, the comments, even those 
in favour of the SMS system, showed some concerns with regard to the level of detail 
that  such  a  system  should  have.  The  concerns  were  related  to  adding  “red  tape”  for 
small  ships  usually  ran by  small  companies  and  the  fact  that  this  Guide  should  only 
cover  “hardware”  issues  and  not  operational  aspects,  which  in  any  case  would  not 
hamper the internal market. In addition, there are Member States that already have a 
domestic  SMS  system  applicable  to  these  ships.  Accordingly,  this  article  was 
simplified by deleting the detail of what the SMS should cover. 

About  62%  of  the  Member  States  did  not  support  the  introduction  of  goals  in  the 
Guide  at  this  stage  and  38%  were  in  favour  of  adding  them.  When  considering  the 
observers, the proportion was 53%/41%. 

About 55% of the Member States supported the introduction of the carriage of cargo 
and 46% were against it. The proportion did not change when including the observers. 
Accordingly,  there  was  a  slight  majority  supporting  the  introduction.  However, 
considering  the  comments  indicating  that  national  legislation  already  exists  in  some 
Member  States,  it  was  important  to  avoid  any  contradiction.  Accordingly,  a  general 
text based on the Swedish performance-based rules was added. 

47 

 
 
 
6. 

It was proposed that unless provided otherwise, the general definitions and those for 
each  chapter  of  Directive  2009/45/EC  would  apply.  All  Member  States  and  all 
observers agreed. 

Questions related to Chapter II-1 

7. 

8. 

9. 

10. 

11. 

12. 

13. 

14. 

In  regulation  1,  it  was  proposed  to  delete  the  text  “For  the  design  life  of  the  ship”. 
About 77% of Member States were in favour of the proposal and 23% were against. 
When  including  the  observers,  the  proportion  changed  as  follows:  71%  and  29%, 
respectively. Accordingly, the text was deleted. 

For  regulation  2,  about  62%  of  Member  States  were  in  favour  of  the  title 
“Anchoring”, another 15% were in favour of the title “Holding the ship at sea bed” 
and, finally, 8% were in favour of the title “Holding the ship stationary at sea”. When 
including  the  observers,  the  proportion  changed  as  follows:  59%,  24%  and  6%, 
respectively. Accordingly, the first option was adopted. 

About  31%  of  Member  States  were  in  favour  of  the  proposal  to  adopt  a  power-
dependant  system  in  regulation  2  and  69%  were  against.  When  including  the 
the  proportion  changed  as  follows:  38%  and  63%,  respectively. 
observers, 
Accordingly, the proposal was not adopted. 

About  67%  of  Member  States  were  in  favour  of  the  proposal  to  delete  the  speed 
requirement in regulation 4 and 33% were against. When including the observers, the 
proportion  changed  as  follows:  73%  and  27%,  respectively.  Accordingly,  the 
requirement was deleted. 

About  62%  of  Member  States  were  in  favour  of  the  proposal  requiring  a  safe  tank 
entry  in  regulation  5  and  38%  were  against.  When  including  the  observers,  the 
proportion changed as follows: 59% and 41%, respectively. Accordingly, the proposal 
was adopted. 

About 8% of Member States were in favour of the proposal of deleting the regulation 
6  on  embarking  and  disembarking  and  92%  were  against.  When  including  the 
the  proportion  changed  as  follows:  29%  and  71%,  respectively. 
observers, 
Accordingly, the regulation was not deleted. 

About  23%  of  Member  States  were  in  favour  of  merging  regulations  7,  8  and  9 
whereas 77% were in favour of leaving the three regulations separate. When including 
the  observers,  the  proportion  changed  as  follows:  75%  and  25%,  respectively. 
Accordingly, the regulations remained separate. 

About 31% of Member States were in favour of establishing a threshold to require a 
freeboard mark and 69% were against. When including the observers, the proportion 
changed  as  follows:  35%  and  65%,  respectively.  Accordingly,  the  proposal  was  not 
adopted. 

15. 

About  75%  of  Member  States  were  in  favour  of  the  proposal  to  delete  the  text 
specifying  the  places  where  fall  overboard  protection  should  be  installed  and  25% 

48 

 
 
were against. When including the observers, the proportion changed as follows: 69% 
and 31%, respectively. Accordingly, the text was deleted. 

16. 

17. 

18. 

About 17% of Member States were in favour of the proposal to delete the need to have 
propulsion  redundancy  and  83%  were  against.  When  including  the  observers,  the 
proportion changed as follows: 25% and 75%, respectively. Accordingly, the text was 
kept. 

About  75%  of  Member  States  showed  preference  to  keep  a  general  text  for  the 
maximum angles at which the propulsion system should be able to operate, remaining 
the same proportion when including the observers. Therefore, that has been the chosen 
option.    

About  42%  of  Member  States  were  in  favour  of  the  proposal  requiring  a  regulation 
dedicated  to  the  main  source  of  power  and  58%  were  against.  When  including  the 
the  proportion  changed  as  follows:  44%  and  56%,  respectively. 
observers, 
Accordingly, the proposal was not adopted. 

Questions related to Chapter II-2 

19. 

About 55% of Member States were in favour of allowing fuels with a FP<60oC. When 
including the observers, the proportion increased to 63%.  

20.  With  regard  to  question  20,  the  majority  of  Member  States  (about  60%)  was  of  the 
view that a Performance Requirement for fuels with a FP<60oC was not needed at this 
stage.  

21.  With regard to question 21, the large majority (about 70%) agreed to include LNG as a 
potential fuel for propulsion. Most of the comments made reference to the IGF Code 
as  the  standard  that  should  be  required  in  case  low  flashpoint  fuels  are  used.  In 
addition, many comments were of the view that there is no need to make an explicit 
indication that LNG is permitted as it is a particular case of a low flashpoint fuel.  

22.  With  regard  to  question  22  about  77%  of  Member  States  were  in  favour  of  deleting 
FR(3) of regulation 2: “The use of combustible materials shall be restricted.” When 
including observers, the proportion decreased to 70%. Accordingly, it was deleted. 

23. 

24. 

In question 23 there was an almost unanimous agreement (92%) to replace the hazard 
wording of regulation 2. “Uncontrolled fire” was replaced by   “Spread of fire”. 

There was no clear majority in  question 24, related to the equivalent standard to  the 
FTP Code (text in brackets in PR(a) and PR(b)). 31% of the Member States wanted  to 
delete the reference , 31%  were  in  favour  of replacing it by ISO standards and 38% 
preferred  other  solution.  The  experts  from  the  observers  were  also  in  a  similar 
proportion. This was kept for discussion during the workshop and finally no reference 
to the FTP Code was made as the reference to the Marine Equipment Directive already 
covers that Code. 

25. 

In question 25, 85% of Member States were in favour of deleting the text in brackets 
in  PR(a)  of regulation  4. Accordingly, it was deleted. However, during the meetings 

49 

 
 
26. 

27. 

28. 

29. 

30. 

31. 

the comments of SE and UK indicating that any high fire risk space, including those in 
open decks, should have a fire detection system were discussed and agreed.  

About  25%  of  Member  States  were  in  favour  of  deleting  PR(c)  and  PR  (d)  of 
regulation  4  and  60%  in  favour  of  keeping  them.  When  considering  the  observers, 
38%  were  in  favour  of  deleting  and  50%  of  keeping  them.  Accordingly,  they  were 
kept but modified during the meetings. 

In  PR  (a.1)  of  regulation  8  a  new  space  was  added  per  unanimity:  battery 
compartments. 

In PR (a.2) of regulation 8 a new space was added per unanimity: compartments used 
for electrical energy conversion. 

In PR(f) of regulation 8 about 75% of the Member States agreed to replace “below the 
deepest draught” by “in contact with the shell”.  

About 80% of the Member State experts agreed that the text “all high fire risk spaces” 
is  more  appropriate  in  PR(d)  of  regulation  7.  The  observers  also  agreed  in  the  same 
proportion. 

About  75%  of  the  Member  States  experts  agreed  that  the  fire-fighters  outfits  should 
not  be  included  as  a  requirement.  When  considering  the  observers  the  proportion 
decreased  but  very  slightly  to  70%.  Accordingly,  the  fire-fighter  outfits  were  not 
included. 

Questions related to Chapter III 

32. 

33. 

34. 

In regulation 1, about 31% of Member States were in favour of merging PR (c) & (d) 
(related  to  MED),  31%  were  also  in  favour  but  as  basis  for  further  development  or 
review and, finally, 38% were against. When including the observers, the proportion 
changed  as  follows:  41%,  24%  and  35%,  respectively.  This  issue  was  further 
discussed during the meetings and in the final written consultation. The result of the 
discussion is explained in the main text of this document. 

There  was  no  clear  majority  in  question  33,  related  to  the  addition  of  a  new  PR  to 
regulation  1  as  follows:  “i)  able  to  protect  occupants  from  exposure”.  50%  of  the 
Member  States  were  in  favour  and  50%  against.  When  including  the  observers,  the 
proportion in favour got  reduced  to 44%.  In  view of  this situation,  the proposal was 
not accepted. 

There was no clear majority in question 34, related to the deletion of the fourth HA of 
regulation  4:  50%  of  the  Member  States  were  in  favour  and  50%  against.  When 
including the observers, the proportion in favour of deletion increased to 63%. In view 
of this situation and considering the fact that it was already covered in II-2.8, it was 
deleted. 

35. 

About 31% of Member States were in favour of deleting PR (b) of regulation 4 related 
to the minimum area per person in assembly stations, 54% proposed to keep it and the 
rest  proposed  different  alternatives  to  the  text.  When  including  the  observers,  the 

50 

 
 
percentage  in  favour  of  deletion  increased  to  47%,  although  some  additional 
alternatives  were  proposed.  According  to  the  comments  provided,  flexibility  was 
added to the final text keeping the idea that the space in assembly stations should be 
considered but  without requesting a fixed value so that it can be adapted to  the ship 
design. 

36. 

37. 

There  was  a  slight  majority  in  question  36,  related  to  keep  the  second  HA  of 
regulation  5:  58%  of  the  Member  States  were  in  favour  and  42%  against.  When 
including 
the  same  (56%/44%). 
the  proportions  were  nearly 
Considering that this question was linked to question 37 (marshalling), proposals and 
conclusions are shown in answers to the latter. 

the  observers, 

There  was  a  tight  majority  in  question  37,  related  to  the  deletion  of  PR  (c)  of 
regulation  5:  42%  of  the  Member  States  were  in  favour  and  50%  against.  When 
including the observers, the proportions were nearly the same (44%/50%). In view of 
this tight situation (similar in question 36) and considering that, at least, three Member 
States considered unclear the PR, and following discussions during the workshop, the 
marshalling requirements were deleted and if necessary, might be added at Tier IV.  

Questions related to Chapter IV 

38. 

About 85% of Member States agreed that the functional requirements of this Chapter 
should be based on the GMDSS. See also Commission Decision 2013/638/EU. 

Questions related to Chapter V 

39. 

40. 

41. 

58% of Member States agreed that Chapter V is not needed as SOLAS  Chapter V is 
anyhow  applicable.  However,  when  observers  were  taken  into  consideration,  the 
proportion was 50/50. Considering the comments made by some of the Member States 
indicating that the application of certain regulations of SOLAS Chapter V depends on 
the criteria of the flag, then, in order to have consistency and a harmonised approach 
in a possible future development of Tier IV, it was decided to keep the current chapter 
in general terms. 

67% of Member States agreed in deleting the text “and surrounding ships” of PR(b). 
When observers were taken into consideration, the proportion was 56/44. 

67%  of  Member  States  agreed  in  deleting  the  text  under  PR  (c)  “to  determine  and 
display  the  range  and  bearing  of  radar  transponders  and  of  other  surface  craft, 
obstructions, buoys, shorelines and navigational marks”. The justification was that the 
observation  on  radar  transponders  requires  as  a  minimum  a  9  GHz  radar  capable  of 
displaying SART signals. This might not be possible or necessary for all ships in this 
category.  When  observers  were  taken  into  consideration,  the  proportion  is  56/44. 
Accordingly, it was deleted. 

51