GOODS DIRECTORATE
Doc. No. 02-1107-D
Please note that clarifications provided by the Icelandic Authority are given as footnotes, in bold, italic, type to the relevant part of the report.
Icelandic Mission to the European Union
Rue de Trèves, 74
1040 Brussels
Rue de Trèves 74, B-1040 Brussels, Tel: (+32 2) 286 18 11, Fax: (+32 2) 286 18 00
E-mail: registry@surv.efta.be
Homepage: www.efta.int

T ABLE OF C ONTENTS
1. Introduction
2.
3.
4. Background
Objectives of the mission
Legal basis
5. Main findings
5.1. Veterinary Organisation
5.3.1. General issues
5.2 General issues
5.3.
Proposed Border inspection post of þorlákshöfn
5.3.2. Veterinary organisation and staff
5.3.3. Facilities
Additional facilities
5.3.4. Equipment
5.3.5. Hygiene
5.3.6. Documentation
5.3.7. Identification and selection
5.3.8. Registers
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
5.3.9. Supervision of consignment 6
5.3.10. Galley waste 6
5.3.11.Fees
5.4.
Proposed Border inspection post of Njarðvík
6
6
3
3
4
3
3
3
3
5.4.1. General issues
5.4.2. Veterinary organisation and staff
5.4.3. Facilities
Additional facilities
5.4.4. Equipment
5.4.5. Hygiene
5.4.6. Documentation
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
5.4.8 Identification and selection
5.4.8. Registers
5.4.9. Galley waste
5.4.10. Fees
6. Conclusions
7. Recommendations
7.1. To the Icelandic authorities
7.2. To the EFTA Surveillance Authority
8.
13
13
Addendum 14
Legenda (abbreviations as laid down in Commission Decision 97/778/EC) 1 :
Products fit for human consumption
8
8
8
8
9
13
HC
Frozen/chilled products T
Other products (Products not fit for human consumption)
Checking in line with the requirements of Commission Decision 93/352/EEC
Packed products only
Fish products only
Animal protein only
Fish meal only
NHC
1
2
3
4
20
1
OJ L 315, 19.11.1997, p. 15
2

1. Introduction
The mission took place in Iceland on 29 and 30 November 2001. The mission team comprised two inspectors from the EFTA Surveillance Authority and one from the Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) of the European Commission. Four representatives from the central competent authority were accompanying the inspection team. A summary of the main findings was given at the proposed border inspection post in Njarðvík port on
30 November 2001.
2. Objectives of the mission
The Icelandic authorities requested the approval of þorlákshöfn and Njarðvík ports as
Border Inspection Posts (BIPs) in letters to the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 18 July
(Njarðvík) and 29 October (þorlákshöfn) 2001 (Docs no 01-5625-A and 01-8598-01).
The objective of the mission was to verify whether the relevant provisions laid down in
EU legislation regarding BIPs, were correctly applied inter alia in relation to the infrastructure, staffing, documentation, equipment and hygiene standards in the proposed
BIPs.
3. Legal basis
A general provision for on-the-spot inspections of BIPs is laid down in point B of paragraph 4 in the introductory part of Annex I to the EEA Agreement.
The legal basis for the mission was;
Article 23 of the Act referred to in point 1.1.4 of Chapter I of Annex I to the EEA
Agreement laying down the principles governing the organisation of veterinary checks on products entering the Community from third countries (Council Directive
97/78/EC) 2
Although not applicable to Iceland, the Authority follows the procedure referred to in the
Act referred to in point 1.2.74 of Chapter I of Annex I to the EEA Agreement laying down certain detailed rules concerning on-the-spot checks carried out in the veterinary field by Commission experts in the Member States (Commission Decision 98/139/EC).
4. Background
There are six BIPs approved in Iceland. The Icelandic authorities have already requested the approval of two additional BIPs in the ports of Húsavík and Siglufjörður. These proposed BIPs were inspected 28 and 29 August 2001. The two new proposed BIPs in
þorlákshöfn and Njarðvík were subject to a visit as laid down in Article 6.2 of Council
Directive 97/78/EC and they were evaluated also on the basis of the dossier already provided by the Icelandic authorities. The mission team requested and received further clarification of certain points in the dossier during the mission.
5.
Main findings
5.1. Veterinary Organisation
2
Hereinafter called Council Directive 97/78/EC
3

The BIPs in Iceland, which are approved for fishery products only, are under the responsibility of the Ministry of Fisheries. All BIPs are operated directly by the
Directorate of Fisheries (DOF) in Reykjavík. There are now seven staff members (six fish inspectors and one lawyer part time) responsible for the BIPs in Iceland. The OFIs who are part time working with BIP controls have it as a priority task. Two OFIs of them are working in Akureyri, one of them in Ísafjörður, three of them full time and one of them part-time (lawyer) in Reykjavík. The mission team was also informed that training of five new staff members was going on. One of these (fish inspector) would become fulltime staff member in Reykjavík and the other four would be available on call when necessary.
The official fish inspectors (OFIs) who are based at the head office of the DOF and are appointed for the BIPs of Reykjavík port, Hafnarfjörður port and Keflavík airport (three fish inspectors, four in the future, and one lawyer) would also be appointed for the two proposed BIPs, and if additional staff is needed it will be provided by the DOF Due to the fact that only around 5-10 consignments per year are expected in þorlákshöfn and 40-
60 per year in Njardvík, staff would be available on request, and will not have a permanent presence in the BIPs.
It will have to be assessed when some experience has been gathered with regard to the actual workload related to the number of consignments and to the additional tasks in relation to import controls, if the number of staff is sufficient for the two proposed BIPs.
Ongoing training is foreseen with regular meetings and seminars in the DOF. The official fish inspectors have already had training and experience in the different Icelandic BIPs and at the DOF in Reykjavik.
5.2 General issues
Even though the inspection team noted that there was no standard procedure in place for the checks of compliance by the competent authority (Article 6 of Council Directive
97/78/EC) , checks of compliance had been performed and the information was recorded in the DOF.
Although the decision requiring a register is a part of the EEA Agreement for Iceland
( Council Decision 92/438/EEC ), the decisions in which the Annexes are giving the details for these registers are not in the Agreement for Iceland (Annexes to the
Commission Decisions 97/394/ EC and 97/152/EC). This point was already mentioned in the last two reports. The registers observed, which for the reason of comparison, are foreseen to contain certain details related to imported and rejected consignments were not complete although they had been improved to a large extent since the last visit to Iceland in August 2001. Some plans and routines were in place to check that galley waste is destroyed if unloaded (Article 16 of Council Directive 97/78/EC) , however a system guaranteeing this was still not in place e.g. the results of the checks carried out with regard to products intended for consumption by crew and passengers on board means of transport operating internationally and their waste.
5.3.
Proposed Border inspection post of þorlákshöfn port
5.3.1. General issues
4

The proposed BIP is located 40 km southeast of Reykjavík. It is located within the building of an approved fish establishment (IS-90801), which was also approved as customs warehouse under customs point of view. An approval is requested for frozen fishery products for human consumption and fish meal (HC-T)(1,3), NHC (4). It was however, clarified on the spot that Iceland was only interested in importing fish meal, which in the Annex to the EEA Joint Committee Decision 101/2001/EEA is given footnote (20) 3 . The BIP will be open on request. It is located in a customs designated area.
5.3.2. Veterinary organisation
For the staff members, who were the three and a half located in Reykjavík, the training standard and the knowledge of the EC-legislation has improved and they were motivated.
5.3.3 Facilities
The facilities, which are located within the premises of an EC-approved establishment, consisted of an administrative office on the first floor, an unloading room, an inspection room and a fenced off frozen storage area within the freezer store of the establishment on the ground floor. A changing room, shower and sanitary facilities were also provided on the ground floor. The following observations were made:
The components of the BIP (office, social rooms, unloading room, inspection room and storage for frozen goods) were not to the necessary extent laid out to be able to operate as one working unit. There was a risk of possible cross contamination with the activity of the private enterprise in which the proposed BIP has been placed.
The part of the commercial freezer store, which was designated to the BIP, was situated far away from the unloading room, which was designated to the BIP and closer to the unloading room used by the establishment. As the store also was foreseen to be in private use during the operation of the BIP, there is a risk of cross contamination due to this.
The part of the commercial freezer store, which was designated to the BIP was not completely and clearly fenced off as the goods within the fence could be accessed.
There was no ambient temperature store for NHC (4), animal protein in the premises available for the BIP.
Additional facilities , necessary for the functioning of the BIP, but situated outside the proposed BIP:
A laboratory providing services for examinations of samples of fishery products and an incineration plant was available in Reykjavík.
5.3.4. Equipment
The BIP was generally well equipped, however the ANIMO software was not in place.
5.3.5. Hygiene
The standard of cleaning in the BIP facilities on the day of the visit was generally satisfactory. However, as there was an incomplete separation of the activities in the BIP from those of the establishment, the overall working hygiene was not satisfactory. The unloading room as well as the storage were not equipped to handle unpacked products 4 .
3
The Authority was informed in a letter from the Icelandic Authorities on 25 January 2002 that it was confirmed that the request for approval for fish meal was withdrawn during the inspection. With the same letter request for the approval of frozen packed fishery bait only (NHC-T (FR)(1, 2, 3) was submitted to the
Authority.
4
The Authority was informed in a letter from the Icelandic Authorities on 25 January 2002 that approval is not requested for unpacked products.
5

5.3.6. Documentation
The DOF forwards the legislation and the updating of the legislation, documentation and instructions to each border inspection post directly. The documentation in the post was incomplete and not completely updated:
The model of the health certificate, which is foreseen from countries listed in part 2 of the Annex to Commission Decision 97/296/EC (countries which are not covered by a particular agreement) and the legal act on which it is originally based (Commission
Decisions 95/328/EC as amended) were not in the proposed BIP.
The model of the health certificate for fish meal (Commission Decision 94/344/EC) and the Annex to Commission Decision 2001/9/EC, which is not yet a part of the EEA
Agreement, was not in the proposed BIP. There was no list with the approved fish meal establishments as required in Commission Decision 2001/9/EC .
The last list of the BIPs in the EFTA States (Iceland and Norway, Annex to the
Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 101/2001) was not in the proposed BIP.
The last list of approved Russian vessels ( modification of Annex to Commission
Decision 97/102/EC as last amended 24October 2001 ) was not in the proposed BIP.
The model of the Annex B to be used in the future consisted of two separate pages.
5.3.7. Identification and selection
Information from different sources were foreseen to be collected, except for the cargo manifests (list or plan comprising an identification of all consignments on board of the vessels), which were available at the local customs office from vessels expected to the port, but they were not foreseen to be received for examination in the BIP. Therefore the official responsible could not have a complete overview about the arriving consignments and no cross check between the manifests and the notification could be carried out.
5.3.8. Registers
Although the decision requiring a register is a part of the EEA Agreement for Iceland
( Council Decision 92/438/EEC ), the decisions in which the Annexes are giving the details for these registers are not in the Agreement for Iceland (Annexes to the
Commission Decisions 97/394/ EC and 97/152/ EC) . The registers observed, which for the reason of comparison, are foreseen to contain certain details related to imported consignments were not complete, although they were improved to a great extent since the last visit in August.
In the register for products brought into the EEA (Annex to Commission Decision
97/394/EC) the following details were still missing: the identification of the BIP and its ANIMO-code .
In the register for rejected goods (Annex to Commission Decision 97/152/EEC) the following details were missing: the identification of the BIP and its ANIMO-code, name of the veterinarian signing the health certificate, date and time of re-dispatch, departure point (if different from border inspection post of entry), destination (if possible), reason for re-dispatch. The following results of the documentary checks: outside the competence of the BIP, absence of certificate/licence, copy rather than original, other formal errors. Documentary errors: third country, region, establishment, additional guarantees, protective clause. Identity checks: Discrepancy between certificate and goods, absence of regulatory brand or mark, negative result of visual examination of the goods, of the means of transport. Physical checks:
6

Goods not complying with the rules, examination by veterinarian, laboratory test.
And finally, a position for comments.
5.3.9
Supervision of consignments
In the storage room of the company fishery products coming from Korea were found, which arrived at the proposed BIP and which were destined to be used as bait. They were accepted although the proposed BIP is not approved and they were not clearly marked as destined for NHC-purposes. They were stored between EC-conforming consignments destined for human consumption 5 .
5.3.10. Galley waste
In the BIP there were no routines to confirm that galley waste will be adequately destroyed (incinerated) if unloaded and no list foreseen to contain the results of checks to be carried out on products intended for consumption by the crew and passengers on board means of transport operating internationally and their waste. The inspection team was informed that the galley waste was buried on a landfill site under the responsibility of the harbour master.
5.3.11. Fees
Regarding the fees, the routines described were not according to the legal requirements in
Article 7 of Council Directive 97/78/EC as a guarantee that the fees have been or will be paid could not be made available from the Competent Authority to the custom authorities before the customs clearance was done.
5.4
Proposed Border inspection post of Njarðvík port
5.4.1. General
The proposed BIP is located 40 km southwest of Reykjavík. It is located within the building of an EC-approved fish freezer store (IS-90204) and approval is requested for frozen fishery products for human consumption HC (1,3), and for animal protein not for human consumption, NHC (4). It was however, clarified on the spot that Iceland was only interested in importing fish meal, which in the Annex to the EEA Joint Committee
Decision 101/2001/EEA is given footnote (20) 6 . The BIP is located within a customs designated area. The BIP will be open on request.
5.4.2. Veterinary organisation and staff
For the staff members, who were the three and a half located in Reykjavík, the training standard and the knowledge of the EC-legislation has improved and they were motivated.
5.4.3. Facilities
The facilities consisted of social rooms (changing room and toilet), an unloading room, an inspection room, and an administrative office in one part of the building. There were two freezer stores with a separate entrance in a different part nearly opposite the inspection room in the corner of the building of the private establishment where the BIP facilities were situated. The following was observed during the visit:
5
The Authority was informed in a letter from the Icelandic Authorities on 25 January 2002 that this was a mistake due to the fact that there are no rules as how to handle bait.
6 The Authority was informed in a letter from the Icelandic Authorities on 25 January 2002 that approval is requested for HC-T (FR)(1, 2, 3), NHC (1, 20) and NHC-T (FR)(1, 2, 3).
7

The flow of the products during unloading and from the unloading room to the freezer store was not foreseen to be hygienically acceptable as contamination, cross contamination and exposure to the open air would inevitably occur.
There was no dock-shelter at the products entrance of the proposed BIP-facilities 7 .
The 40-foot-container, placed in the yard for the storage of NHC-products, had an exposed wooden floor and was not fixed to the premises and clearly identified as belonging to the BIP.
Additional facilities , necessary for the functioning of the BIP, but situated outside the proposed BIP:
A laboratory providing services for examinations of samples of fishery products and an incineration plant were available in Reykjavík.
5.4.4. Equipment
The BIP was generally well equipped but the ANIMO software was not in place.
5.4.5. Hygiene
The standard of cleaning was generally satisfactory on the day of the mission. Due to the deficiencies mentioned concerning the facilities (5.4.3), the overall working hygiene was not satisfactory. The unloading room as well as the storage were not equipped to handle unpacked products.
5.4.6. Documentation
The DOF forwards the legislation and the updating of the legislation, documentation and instructions to each border inspection post directly. The documentation in the post was incomplete and not completely updated:
The model of the health certificate, which is foreseen from countries listed in part 2 of the Annex to Commission Decision 97/296/EC (countries which are not covered by a particular agreement) and the legal act on which it is originally based (Commission
Decisions 95/328/EC as amended) were not in the proposed BIP.
The model of the health certificate for fish meal (Commission Decision 94/344/EC and the Annex to Commission Decision 2001/9/EC, which is not yet a part of the
EEA Agreement) was not in the proposed BIP. There was no list with the approved fish meal establishments as required in Commission Decision 2001/9/EC .
The last list of the BIPs in the EFTA States (Iceland and Norway, Annex to the
Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 101/2001) was not in the proposed BIP.
The last list of approved Russian vessels ( modification of Annex to Commission
Decision 97/102/EC as last amended 24October 2001 ) was not in the proposed BIP.
The model of the Annex B to be used in the future consisted of two separate pages.
5.4.7. Identification and selection
Information from different sources was foreseen to be collected, except for the cargo manifests (list or plan comprising an identification of all consignments on board of the vessel), which were not foreseen to be received for examination in the BIP. Therefore the official responsible could not have a complete overview about the arriving consignments and no cross check between the manifests and the notification could be carried out.
5.4.8. Registers
Although the decision requiring a register is a part of the EEA Agreement for Iceland
( Council Decision 92/438/EEC ), the decisions in which the Annexes are giving the
7
The interpretation of Article 4 of Commission Decision 2001/812/EC concerning BIPs approved for fishery products only is that in this cases dock shelters are not necessary.
8

details for these registers are not in the Agreement for Iceland (Annexes to the
Commission Decisions 97/394/ EC and 97/152/ EC) . The registers observed, which for the reason of comparison, are foreseen to contain certain details related to imported consignments were not complete, although they were improved to a great extent since the last visit in August.
In the register for products brought into the EEA (Annex to Commission Decision
97/394/EC) the following details were still missing: the identification of the BIP and its ANIMO-code .
In the register for rejected goods (Annex to Commission Decision 97/152/EEC) the following details were missing: the identification of the BIP and its ANIMO-code, name of the veterinarian signing the health certificate, date and time of re-dispatch, departure point (if different from border inspection post of entry), destination (if possible), reason for re-dispatch.
The following results of the documentary checks: outside the competence of the
BIP, absence of certificate/licence, copy rather than original, other formal errors.
Documentary errors: third country, region, establishment, additional guarantees, protective clause. Identity checks: Discrepancy between certificate and goods, absence of regulatory brand or mark, negative result of visual examination of the goods, of the means of transport. Physical checks: Goods not complying with the rules, examination by veterinarian, laboratory test. And finally, a position for comments.
5.4.9. Galley waste
In the BIP there were no routines to confirm that galley waste will be adequately destroyed (incinerated) if unloaded and no list foreseen to contain the results of checks to be carried out on products intended for consumption by the crew and passengers on board means of transport operating internationally and their waste. The mission team was informed that the galley waste was buried on a landfill site under the responsibility of the harbour master.
5.4.10 Fees
Regarding the fees, the routines described was not according to the legal requirements in
Article 7 of Council Directive 97/78/EC as a guarantee that the fees have been or will be paid could not be made available from the CA to the custom authorities before the customs clearance was done.
6. Conclusions
6.1. General issues
There were some shortcomings encountered in the proposed BIPs related to the checks as required, which in particular concerned the transposition of some parts of the EEA legislation in Icelandic law, which have already been mentioned in the last report.
Although the decision requiring a register is a part of the EEA Agreement for Iceland
( Council Decision 92/438/EEC ), the decisions in which the Annexes are giving the details for these registers are not in the Agreement (Annexes to the Commission
Decisions 97/394/ EC and 97/152/ EC) . It is not clear if the relevant legislation for galley waste is transposed (Article 16 of Council Directive 97/78/EC) or if it is correctly
9

implemented as galley waste was not destroyed and as there was no verification of the destruction foreseen in case of bringing galley waste on land.
6.2 Application issues
6.2.1. Staff
The three official fish inspectors appointed for the BIPs of Keflavík airport,
Hafnarfjörður port and Reykjavík port, would also be appointed for the proposed BIPs and if additional staff is needed it will be provided by the DOF. Due to the fact that only around 50-70 consignments per year are expected in the proposed BIPs, staff will be available on request, and will not have a permanent presence in the BIPs. It will have to be assessed when some experience has been gathered with regard to the actual workload related to the number of consignments and to the additional tasks in relation to import control, if the number of staff is sufficient for the two proposed BIPs.
6.2.2. Facilities of the proposed BIPs
The lay out of the facilities, and in particular the flow of the products through the BIPs, which concerned the risk of contamination and cross contamination of the products, were not in accordance with Annex II to Council Directive 97/78/EC and the Annex to
Commission Decision 92/525/EEC.
The facilities necessary for storage in both proposed BIPs in particular for the storage of ambient temperature NHC-consignments were not fully in accordance with Annex II to
Council Directive 97/78/EC and the Annex to Commission Decision 92/525/EEC.
6.2.3. Equipment
ANIMO software was not in place in the proposed BIPs and therefore not in accordance with Annex II to Council Directive 97/78/EC and the Annex to Commission Decision
92/525/EEC.
6.2.4. Hygiene
The cleaning was satisfactory on the day of the visit, however the foreseen working hygiene was not in accordance with Annex II to Council Directive 97/78/EC and the
Annex to Commission Decision 92/525/EEC . Both facilities were not acceptable for unpacked products.
6.2.5. Documentation and registration
The documentation was incomplete and not updated and therefore not in accordance with point 6 of the Annex to Commission Decision 92/525/EEC . The registers in place in the proposed BIPs, which for the reason of comparison, are foreseen to contain certain details related to imported and rejected consignments, had improved in comparison to the last report but they were still not complete according to the requirements in the Annexes to the Commission Decisions 97/394/ EC and 97/152/EC.
6.2.6. Identification and selection of consignments
As complete cargo manifests were not foreseen to be received at the BIPs, a complete overview of the arriving consignments was not possible in any of the proposed BIPs which was also mentioned in the last report and which is foreseen in point (g) of Annex
III (within one consignment) and Article 3 of Council Directive 97/78/EC .
Because of the flow of products during unloading in Njarðvík, the possibility of identification and selection of products was insufficient.
6.2.7. Galley waste
10

In the proposed BIPs there were no routines to confirm that galley waste is adequately destroyed (incinerated) if unloaded and no list foreseen to contain the results of checks to be carried out on products intended for consumption by the crew and passengers on board means of transport operating internationally and their waste although it had been required in the Authority’s last reports (BIP mission 31.01-18.02.2000 and 27. -
28.08.2001).
6.2.8. Fees
Regarding the fees, the routines described were not according to the requirements in
Article 7 of Council Directive 97/78/EC , which states that the fees have been or will be paid could not be made available from the CA to the custom authorities before the customs clearance was done as already mentioned in the last report (27. -28.08.2001).
7 Recommendations
7.1. To the Icelandic authorities
To provide satisfactory guarantees as a response, giving details of actions taken to ensure that all the deficiencies referred to in this report relating to the general issues and the proposed BIPs in þorlákshöfn port and in Njarðvík port have been corrected.
7.2. To the EFTA Surveillance Authority
7.2.1. To add to the list of approved Icelandic BIPs the border inspection post of þorlákshöfn port approved for products fit for Human Consumption under Temperature Control (HC-T (FR))(1,2,3) for packed and frozen fishery products and the border inspection post of
Njarðvík port approved for products fit for Human Consumption under
Temperature Control (HC-T (FR))(1,2,3), NHC-NT (20) for packed and frozen fishery products and fish meal if satisfactory written evidence of corrective action undertaken in relation to the deficiencies found is received from the Icelandic Authorities.
8 Addendum to the final report from the mission carried out in Iceland on 29 and 30 November 2001 concerning proposed border inspection posts.
The Competent Authority’s response to the recommendation 7.1 in the report.
5.2 General issues
A standard procedure and a checklist used for checks of compliance by the competent authority in the BIPs have been submitted to the Authority. The chief of the Border
Inspection division will inspect each BIP at least once a year and make a report to the
Director of Fisheries after the visit and the report will be part of the documentation of each BIP.
5.3 Proposed border inspection post of þorlákshöfn port.
5.3.3.Facilities
11

Assurances were given that measures were put in place to prevent cross-contamination during the operation of the BIP and that the part of the freezer store designated to the BIP had been moved as close as possible to the unloading room.
5.3.4 Equipment
Assurances were given that BIP would not be opened until ANIMO software was in place and the BIP was approved and ANIMO number allocated.
5.3.5 Hygiene see 5.3.3.
5.3.6 Documentation
The Authority was informed in a letter from the Icelandic Authorities on 25 January 2002 that the legal act ( Commission Decisions 95/328/EC as amended) , the model of the health certificate, ( the Annex to Commission Decision 97/296/EC) , the last list of approved Icelandic and Norwegian BIPs and the updated list of approved Russian vessels are now in place.
5.3.7 Identification and selection
Cargo manifests will be submitted for examination to the relevant BIPs by telefax from the local customs office before unloading of cargo vessels
5.3.8 Registers
The details contained in the Annexes to the Commission Decisions 97/394/EC and
97/152/EC are now included in the registers.
5.3.9 Supervision of consignments
It has been cleared that frozen packed bait should be submitted to border inspection posts and be categorized as NHC-T(FR)(1, 2, 3). Bait will in future be stored separately from
EC-conforming consignments destined for human consumption.
5.3.10 Galley waste
The Authority was informed in a telefax from the Icelandic Authorities on 7 February
2002 that receipts of destroyed galley waste from third country vessels, if brought on shore, would be filed in the BIPs.
5.3.11 Fees
Assurances were given that collection of fees is a priority task for the joint CA and
Customs authority group and that it is foreseen that fees will be collected by the customs before the release of the consignment.
5.4 Proposed border inspection post of Njardvík port.
5.4.3 Facilities
The 40-foot container for NHC products had been replaced by a same size container with a steel floor ant that it has been fixed to the premises and identified as clearly belonging to the BIP.
5.4.4 Equipment
Assurances were given that the BIP would not be opened until ANIMO software was in place and the BIP was approved and ANIMO number allocated.
12

5.4.5 Hygiene
See 5.4.3.
5.4.6 Documentation
All the documents missing or not completely updated at the time of the inspection are now in place in this proposed BIP.
5.4.7 Identification and selection see 5.3.7.
5.4.8 Registers
The details contained in the Annexes to the Commission Decisions 97/394/EC and
97/152/EC are now included in the registers.
5.3.10 Galley waste
The Authority was informed in a telefax from the Icelandic Authorities on 7 February
2002 that receipts of destroyed galley waste from third country vessels, if brought on shore, would be filed in the BIPs.
5.4.10 Fees
See 5.3.11
13