
Article 1 
For the purpose of this Decision:

1.. ‘recognised organisation’ means an organisation recognised in accordance with Article 4 of Directive 94/57/EC;
2.. ‘Paris Memorandum of Understanding’ (hereinafter Paris MOU) means the Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control, signed in Paris on 26 January 1982, as it stands at the date of adoption of this Decision;
3.. ‘Tokyo Memorandum of Understanding’ (hereinafter Tokyo MOU) means the Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control in the Asia Pacific Region, signed in Tokyo on 1 December 1993, as it stands at the date of adoption of this Decision;
4.. a ‘recognised organisation-related detention’ means that the ship’s recognised organisation that carried out the relevant survey or that issued a certificate had a responsibility in relation to the deficiencies which, alone or in combination, led to detention, as defined in the applicable instructions of the relevant port State control scheme;
5.. a ‘marine casualty’ means a marine casualty as defined in IMO resolution A. 849(20).
Article 2 
The criteria to be followed in order to decide when the performance of an organisation acting on behalf of  the Secretary of State  can be considered an unacceptable threat to safety and the environment are set out in Annex I.
Article 3 

1. The  Secretary of State, in determining whether an organisation acting on behalf of  the Secretary of State  must be considered an unacceptable threat to safety and the environment may, in addition to the criteria set out in Annex I, take into account the cases ... where:
(a) it has been proven in a court of law or in an arbitration procedure that a marine casualty involving a ship in the class of a recognised organisation has been caused by a wilful act or omission or gross negligence of such recognised organisation, its bodies, employees, agents or others who act on its behalf; and
(b) it can be considered, based on the information available to the Secretary of State, that such wilful act, omission or gross negligence has been due to shortcomings in the organisation’s structure, procedures and/or internal control.
2. The Secretary of State shall take into account the gravity of the case, and shall seek to determine whether recurrence or any other circumstances reveal the organisation’s failure to remedy the shortcomings referred to in paragraph 1 and improve its performance.
Article 4 

1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2. The Secretary of State may by regulations, amend Annex I in order to:
(a) adjust the said criteria to ensure their usefulness and fairness;
(b) determine the circumstances in which a recognised organisation's authorisation may be suspended or withdrawn.
Article 4A 

(1.) The power to make regulations conferred on the Secretary of State by paragraph 2 of Article 4 is exercisable by statutory instrument.
(2.) A statutory instrument containing regulations made under this Regulation is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
Article 5 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Article 6 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Done at Brussels, 16 June 2009.
For the Commission
Antonio TAJANI
Vice-President
ANNEX I
1.  1.1. 
being

Ul = N · p + 0,5 + z · [N · p · (1 – p)]1/2

Uh = N · p – 0,5 – z · [N · p · (1 – p)]1/2

where

nnumber of recognised organisation-related detentionsUlthreshold low to medium performanceUhthreshold medium to high performanceNtotal number of inspections (minimum number = 60)pfixed yardstick = 0,02zstatistical significance factor = 1,645
 1.1.1. 

n > Ul 6 points
Ul ≥ n ≥ Uh 3 points
Uh > n 0 points
 1.1.2. 

n > Ul 6 points
Ul ≥ n ≥ Uh 3 point
Uh > n 0 points
 1.1.3. 

n > Ul 6 points
Ul ≥ n ≥ Uh 3 points
Uh > n 0 points

If Uh < 0, then it is considered that Uh = 0.

If n = 0, then 0 points will be given, irrespective of the Uh value.
 1.2.  1.2.1. 

increase 1 point
unchanged 0 point
decrease – 1 point
 1.2.2. 

increase 1 point
unchanged 0 points
decrease – 1 point
 1.2.3. 

increase 1 point
unchanged 0 points
decrease – 1 point

When a recognised organisation presents a 0 % detention rate for two consecutive periods, it will be considered a positive performance and the same number of points as for a decrease in the detention rates will be given.
 1.3. 
being

Ul = N · p + 0,5 + z · [N · p · (1 – p)]1/2

where

nnumber of detentionsUlthreshold low performanceNtotal number of inspections (minimum number = 60)pfixed yardstick = 0,05zstatistical significance factor = 1,645
 1.3.1. 

n > Ul 1 point
Ul ≥ n 0 points
 1.3.2. 

n > Ul 1 point
Ul ≥ n 0 points
 1.3.3. 

n > Ul 1 point
Ul ≥ n 0 points
 1.4. 

Number of cases points
1 or 2 1 per ship
3 to 5 2 per ship
> 5 3 per ship
 1.5. 
1 point for every ship. Occurrences already counted under 1.4 are excluded.
 1.6. 
3 points for every ship — adding to points allocated under 1.4 or 1.5
 1.7. 

> 2 + 3 points
1 – 2 + 2 points
0,5 – 1 + 1 point
< 0,5 – 1 point

Where there is not sufficient data for the calculation of the difference in performance for a recognised organisation, then 0 points will be attributed.

2. 
1 point for every reported case up to a maximum of 3 points.

ANNEX II
REPORT 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
