committee of technical experts session minutes€¦ · the deputy secretary general (sg) of otif...

Organisation intergouvernementale

pour les transports internationaux

ferroviaires (OTIF)

Zwischenstaatliche Organisation

für den internationalen

Eisenbahnverkehr (OTIF)

Intergovernmental Organisation

for International Carriage

by Rail (OTIF)

Berne, 11-12.2.2009

Committee of Technical

Experts

3rd session

Minutes

3

G:\Technik\Fachausschuss technische Fragen\CTE_02_09\Reports\Final\CTE_03_PV_e.doc

Table of contents

Page

AGENDA 5

DISCUSSIONS 7

Opening of the session and welcome by the deputy SG of OTIF 7

1. Presence and quorum 7

2. Approval of the agenda 7

3. Election of chairman 8

4. Rules of Procedure for the CTE – for adoption 8

5. Proposals for amendments to Appendices F (APTU) and G (ATMF) – for

discussion only 11

6. Report from the Committee of Technical Experts working groups 16

7. APTU Annexes – for adoption 17

7.1 Annex 1-A: ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS 17

7.2 Annex 1-B: SUBSYSTEMS 17

7.3 Annex 1-C: TECHNICAL FILE 18

7.4 Annex 1-E: ASSESSING ENTITY – QUALIFICATIONS AND

INDEPENDENCE 18

7bis Preliminary information from the Secretariat on future consultation of non EC

OTIF Member States concerning draft TSIs 19

8. National Vehicle Register (NVR) for non-EC OTIF Member States – for

adoption 21

8.1 Setting up of the NVR in non-EC OTIF Member States 21

9. VKM (Vehicle Keeper Marking) 22

9.1 Amendment to point 3.1.6 in the Rules of Registration – for adoption 22

9.2 Cooperation with the Organization for Cooperation of Railways (OSJD) 23

10. Memorandum of Understanding establishing the basic principles of a common

system of verification of entities of charge of maintenance for freight wagons 23

11. Work programme of the Committee of Technical Experts 23

12. Any other business 24

13. Next session 24

ANNEX I LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

ANNEX II LIST OF DOCUMENTS

5


AGENDA

1. Presence and quorum

2. Approval of the agenda

3. Election of chairman

4. Rules of Procedure for the Committee of Technical Experts – for adoption

5. Proposals for amendments to Appendices F (APTU) and G (ATMF) for discussion

only

6. Report from the Committee of Technical Experts working groups WG LEGAL and

WG TECH

7. APTU Annexes – for adoption

7.1 Annex 1A: Essential requirements

7.2 Annex 1-B: Subsystems

7.3 Annex 1-C: Technical file

7.4 Annex 1-E: Assessing Entity - Qualifications and independence

7 bis Preliminary information from the Secretariat on future consultation of non EC OTIF

Member States concerning draft TSI

8. National Vehicle Register (NVR) for non-EC OTIF Member States – for adoption

8.1 Setting up of the NVR in non-EC OTIF Member States

9. VKM (Vehicle keeper marking)

9.1 Amendment to point 3.1.6 in the Rules of Registration – for adoption

9.2 Cooperation with the Organization for Cooperation of Railways (OSJD)

10. Memorandum of Understanding establishing the basic principles of a common sys-

tem of verification of entities of charge of maintenance for freight wagons

11. Work programme of Committee of Technical Experts

12. Any other business

13. Next session

6


7


DISCUSSIONS

Opening of the session and welcome by the deputy SG of OTIF

The Deputy Secretary General (SG) of OTIF opened the 3rd

session of the Committee of

Technical Experts (CTE) on behalf of the Secretary General and welcomed all the partici-

pants. He expressed satisfaction at the attendance at this session and thanked the European

Commission (EC) and the EC OTIF Member States (MS) for having arrived in time at this

session following their preparatory meeting in the morning. Preparations both within and out-

side OTIF had been more diligent than ever. The Secretariat had prepared many documents

for this session, which had already been discussed at WG LEGAL and WG TECH.

The question of interoperability was one of the most important, especially with regard to long

railway lines, e.g. those between Europe and Asia or between certain regions or within certain

regions outside Europe.

OTIF’s role was to assume a bridging function. OTIF had built a bridge between the EC inter-

operability system and the railway systems outside the European Union. OTIF was able to do

this knowing that there was no alternative system, not even at a global level. This was the

right direction to take. The deputy Secretary General wished the session success.

1. Presence and quorum

The Secretariat decided to check the quorum before the agenda was approved. 26 MS at-

tended the session, plus one candidate Member State which had been specially invited to take

part as an observer. Latvia did not attend the session but had made arrangements to be repre-

sented by Lithuania. For general issues, the quorum required eighteen MS to be present was

exceeded by seven. The “restricted” quorum for specific questions concerning modifications

to the APTU Annexes required eight MS to be present and this quorum was exceeded by one.

One MS had no voting rights at all according to Articles 26 § 7 of the Convention.

2. Approval of the agenda

The Secretary General (Mr Schimming) had expressed great pleasure when, by mid-January

2009, he had received a letter from Mr Grillo-Pasquarelli setting out the decision of the EC to

enable the non-EC OTIF MS to have some influence in the drafting of new and revised TSIs

before they were adopted in the EC. This question had been discussed at several meetings of

WG TECH and WG LEGAL. Assuming that the proposals of the “Schweinsberg” group were

implemented, OTIF would be bound to include regulations in the APTU Annexes that are

equivalent to the adopted TSIs. This was the reason why the Secretariat had proposed to add

a new item 7 bis for information: “Preliminary information from the Secretariat on future con-

sultation of non-EC OTIF MS concerning draft TSI”. Discussion would not be prevented, but

nobody was obliged to discuss. This information showed that the Secretariat and the non-EC

OTIF Member States would be very busy with these consultations and that good preparations

and planning would be required due to the short deadlines.

CZ (presidency of the European Community) declared that during this session only the

representative of the European Commission (EC representative) would comment on individ-

ual items of the agenda and represent the standpoint of the EC/OTIF Member States’ common

position. This had been agreed by the EC MS at the preparatory meeting before this session.

8


CZ added that a lot of work had been done by WG LEGAL and WG TECH during the last

year and expressed the hope that solutions acceptable to both EC Member States and non-EC

Member States could be agreed at this session.

The EC representative confirmed the statement by the Czech presidency of the European

Community. The European Community was approaching this session with a positive frame of

mind and intended to support all the decisions this Committee was due to take. He compli-

mented the Secretariat for its excellent preparation of this session and the high standard of the

documents provided.

3. Election of chairman

The Secretariat proposed Switzerland, which had already chaired the 2nd

session, to chair this

session, this time in the shape of Mr Roland Bacher. Mr. Bacher had successfully chaired the

last five meetings of WG TECH.

The CTE unanimously elected Switzerland, in the shape of Mr Roland Bacher, to chair this

session.

4. Rules of Procedure for the CTE – for adoption

Before opening this item for discussion, the Chair declared that the session was quorate for

this item. In accordance with Article 16 § 4 of the Convention, at least 9 votes (1/3 (rounded

up) of the 25 MS present with voting right) in favour were needed to adopt the Rules of Pro-

cedure. At the same time the number of votes in favour should be greater than the votes

against.

The Secretariat introduced this item, explaining that the Rules of Procedure (RP) proposed

for adoption at this session differed considerably from the version submitted to the 2nd

session

of the CTE. In July 2007 the first draft had been e-mailed to the MS with a request for propos-

als for amendments. The Secretariat had received some feedback and had tried its best to take

account of all the proposals and comments when drafting the revised rules.

The basis of these revised rules were the RP used by other OTIF Committees, with a few par-

ticular features reflecting the situation of the CTE and taking into account Article 16 § 1 of the

Convention concerning the situation of MS that had made a declaration according to Article

42 (see RP Article 2, “Composition and tasks”). RP Article 4, “Right to vote”, set out other

reasons why a Member of the Technical Committee might not be entitled to vote, such as un-

paid contributions to OTIF or if a MS had formulated objections against the relevant provision

according to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention or did not apply some parts of the APTU Uni-

form Rules (UR) according to Article 9 § 1 thereof. A flow diagram in the Annex to the rules

illustrated the decision-making process concerning the voting rights of a Member State on the

basis of various conditions.

The written procedure had been introduced into the rules (Article 21 § 3) for cases where the

Committee wished unanimously to resolve a problem, perhaps a formal one, which could not

be adopted because there was no quorum or because a serious error in the APTU Annexes had

been found which should be remedied as soon as possible because it might give rise to a major

safety risk. In principle, the Rules of Procedure could be amended most easily at any session

and they would enter into force on the date proposed in Article 29.

9


The Chair commented that he was dealing with this agenda item as if these Rules had already

been adopted.

H commented that the period of two working days in Article 21 § 3 d) for replying was not

sufficient and suggested changing the period to three weeks (21 calendar days). He also identi-

fied a conflict between Article 21 § 3 g) and Article 23 § 3 h).

The EC representative informed the meeting that there had been a discussion in the Commu-

nity about the Rules, the outcome of which was that in general, they were acceptable. Shortly

before this session, the EC representative had sent the Secretariat the following written

comments on the Rules:

- Article 6 § 2 b): the reference to Article 18 is not correct. The reference should be to Arti-

cle 8;

- Article 11: the previous version discussed at the 2nd

session in 2007 had referred to "pro-

posals" in the sense of "documents". The new version referred to "agenda items", but the

wording did not seem appropriate. The use of the word "proposals" seemed better.

The specific proposal was:

- title: replace "agenda item" with "proposals";

- §1: replace "agenda item" with "proposals";

- §§ 2, 3 and 4: replace "submission" with "document";

- §5: replace "item" with "document".

As already argued by H, the two working days referred to in Article 21 § 3 d) for MS to sub-

mit their vote was insufficient, even more so as the EC MS would have to coordinate their

position. The EC representative suggested replacing this with “twenty-one calendar days”.

In letter g) of Article 21 § 3 the EC representative had difficulties with how the quorum was

established. The EC representative proposed two alternative solutions:

– to delete Art. 21§ 3 h) (lack of response to be considered as abstention), or

– to add to Art. 21§ 3 h) “A lack of response from a member of the Technical Committee

shall not count towards the quorum.”

As a result of comparing these proposed RP with the Rules of Procedure of various European

Commission committees, the EC representative suggested including the possibility to require

discussion at an extra CTE session instead of only having the possibility of answering “yes” or

“no”. The specific proposal was to add the following provision: "If a committee member re-

quests that the proposed measures be examined at a committee meeting, the written procedure

shall be terminated without result; a new committee meeting should be convened as soon as

possible".

The Chair ordered the proposals for amendments as follows:

10


1. replacement of “two working days” with “twenty one calendar days” in Article 21 § 3

d),

2. Article 6 § 2 b): the reference to Article 18 to be replaced by a reference to Article 8,

3. the European Community proposal relating to Article 11,

4. the European Community proposal to delete Article 21 § 3 h),

5. the European Community proposal to amend Article 21 § 3 h).

In reply to a remark by F that a MS with a declaration according to Article 42 of the Conven-

tion in force was not a member of CTE and that, according to Article 16 § 1 of the Conven-

tion, France could not be counted towards the quorum and was participating only as an ob-

server, the Secretariat explained in detail that there were two different quorums: a “big” quo-

rum for general matters, such as the election of a chairman and the adoption of the Rules of

Procedure, and a “small” restricted quorum for the adoption of amendments to the Annexes to

APTU; the “small” quorum did not count MS which have made a declaration according to

Article 42 of the Convention against applying Appendices F and G of COTIF 1999; France

was in that situation. Furthermore, the Secretariat underlined that the quorum changed de-

pending on the agenda item being discussed. Agenda item 4 (the RP) was such an item where

the first sentence of Article 16 § 1 applied: “The Committees … shall be composed, in princi-

ple, of all Member States.”. The right to vote was not only a right, but also entailed certain

obligations to implement adopted regulations and observe the obligations to the Organisation

and the other Member States by observing the provisions in Article 3 of the Convention.

In reply to a remark by the EC representative that for the “small” quorum 17 Contracting

States should be counted and the quorum would be 9 instead of 8, the Secretariat explained

that the correct number of Contracting States was 16 because one Contracting State attending

this session had a suspended voting right due to non-payment of its annual contributions to the

Organisation.

The result of the vote on proposal number 1 (replacement of “two working days” with

“twenty one calendar days” in Article 21 § 3 d) was: 24 in favour, none against, one absten-

tion. The proposal was adopted.

With the agreement of the participants of this session, proposal number 2 (the reference to

Article 18 in Article 6 § 2 b) to be replaced by a reference to Article 8) was tacitly adopted

without voting.

After a discussion between the Secretariat and the EC, proposal number 3 relating to Article

11 was changed to:

- replacement of “Agenda items” by “Proposals” in the title and in §§ 1 and 2,

- replacement of “submission” by “document” in §§ 3 and 4.

The result of the vote on proposal number 3: 24 in favour, one against, no abstentions. The

proposal was adopted.

11


The result of the vote on proposal number 4 (deletion of Article 21 § 3 h): 22 in favour, none

against, no abstentions. The proposal was adopted.

The result of the vote on proposal number 5 with respect to Article 21 (addition of the sen-

tence “A lack of response from a member of the Technical Committee shall not count towards

the quorum” to Article 21 § 3 h)): none in favour, no abstentions. The proposal was rejected.

After adopting the deletion of Article 21 § 3 h), the EC representative proposed the follow-

ing new Article 21 § 3 h): "If a Committee member requests that the proposed measures be

examined at a committee meeting, the written procedure shall be terminated without result; a

new committee meeting should be convened as soon as possible". The justification was that if

complex documents were dealt with through the written procedure, a need for discussion

could arise.

The Secretariat considered that the rule that one Committee member could cause the CTE to

be convened (which would have a direct influence on OTIF’s finances) was delicate with re-

gard to Article 7 § 1 of the Rules of Procedure, where, at the request of at least five members,

an extraordinary session of the Technical Committee could be convened. The compromise

proposal from the Secretariat was to replace “If a Committee member …” in the European

Community proposal by “If three Committee members …”. RS proposed “at least three Com-

mittee members…”.

In reply to the suggestion from H to change the number 5 in Article 7 § 1 to 3, here too the

Secretariat explained that the rules in Article 7 § 1 were not intended for the written proce-

dure and did not need to be changed.

The results of the vote on the new Article 21 § 3 h), “If at least three Committee members

request that the proposed measures be examined at a committee meeting, the written proce-

dure shall be terminated without result; a new committee meeting should be convened as soon

as possible.”: 24 in favour, none against, no abstentions. The proposal was adopted.

The results of the vote on the Rules of Procedure of the Committee of Technical Experts, with

the individually adopted amendments above: 25 in favour, none against, no abstentions.

Conclusion:

The Rules of Procedure for the Committee of Technical Experts (draft version of 3 Decem-

ber 2008) with the amendments proposed and adopted during this session were adopted.

5. Proposals for amendments to Appendices F (APTU) and G (ATMF) – for dis-

cussion only

DE (Mr Schweinsberg) presented the results of the re-activated “Schweinsberg” group, of

which he had been the chairman, in three parts:

1. What were the problems and results of the first working group, which was active be-

tween 2004 and 2006?

2. Why was this group reactivated and what needs should be considered and

3. Presentation of necessary changes, first in ATMF and secondly in APTU.

12


ad 1. The basic question was how the regulations could enable the smooth movement of

railway vehicles

a) between the non-EC OTIF Member States only,

b) between the EC OTIF MS only,

c) from an EC OTIF MS to a non-EC OTIF Member State,

d) from a non-EC OTIF MS to an EC OTIF MS, and

e) between OTIF MS and OSJD MS.

Cases a) and b) were covered by the OTIF regulations and the EC legislation respectively.

Problems arose with cases c) and d).

By analysing the approval procedure for vehicles, the group had found that in the EC, it was

essentially the TSIs and European standards that set out the requirements for authorisation of a

vehicle. The Notified Bodies were responsible for interoperability constituents, they issued the

EC declaration of conformity and certificates of verification of subsystems, and NSAs issued

the authorisations for placing into service.

On the other hand, ATMF dealt with the admission of a vehicle type, there were no Notified

Bodies, and the admission to operation was issued at Member State level, without any certifi-

cates being issued by the user and manufacturer. The group had found no compatibility be-

tween these two systems and its major task had been to analyse the problems and to find pos-

sible solutions for cases c) and d).

The group had drafted proposals for amendments to COTIF (APTU and ATMF). It had also

proposed transitional solutions for rolling stock marked according to RIV and RIC.

With regard to case e), cooperation between OTIF and OSJD was only taken into account in

the group and the report marginally.

The basic condition for cross-acceptance was equivalence of the technical requirements be-

tween the TSIs and the corresponding APTU Annexes and that the EC authorisation for plac-

ing into service and the admission to operate in the OTIF regulations enabled these technical

requirements to be met. The solution proposed by the first working group was for case:

a) all aspects were to be regulated in ATMF and APTU;

b) all aspects were regulated in EC law, which was transposed into national legislation;

there was no need for amendments to APTU and ATMF, except to lay down that it is

sufficient to comply with EC law;

c) harmonisation of the COTIF technical approval process with the process applied in the

EC; in addition, all operational or maintenance requirements must satisfy the require-

ments of APTU and ATMF and the EC authorisation of placing into service must be

cross-accepted by non-EC OTIF MS;

d) in the same way, a vehicle having an admission to operate based on APTU and ATMF

must be accepted as having an authorisation for placing into service in the EC and the

vehicle must meet the operational and maintenance requirements of EC law. Addition-

13


ally, the non-EC OTIF railway undertakings must have an EC safety certificate if they

wish to operate the vehicle in the EC.

The above results of the working group were achieved in 2006.

ad 2. The working group was “reactivated” in spring 2008. The reason for reactivating the

group (at the request of the 2nd

session of WG LEGAL) was the developments in the EC legis-

lation, especially the new Interoperability Directive (2008/57/EC) and preparation of the new

Safety Directive (2008/110/EC). The working group’s new task was to establish the new and

the amended provisions in the EC legislation and harmonise APTU and ATMF with them.

The principle of cross-acceptance was a new feature of the revised Interoperability Directive.

The working group’s new task was to establish the new and amended provisions in the EC

legislation and harmonise APTU and ATMF with them as far as necessary.

The principles of cross-acceptance are that:

- each vehicle needs an authorisation,

- mutual recognition is the general principle.

For vehicles fully in conformity with the provisions of the Uniform Technical Prescriptions

(UTP), full cross-acceptance was granted if all aspects were covered and no open points and

derogations were remaining. For vehicles not fully in conformity with these provisions, only

the provisions that had not already been checked should be met, as the checks that had already

been carried out should not be repeated, but cross-accepted, if cross-acceptance was possible.

The requirements concerning the maintenance of vehicles in the draft revised Safety Directive

were considered. This Directive introduces the concept of the entity in charge of maintenance

(ECM). This entity is responsible for the maintenance of a vehicle in accordance with the

maintenance file and other requirements in force, including maintenance rules and TSI provi-

sions; the ECM of each vehicle has to be registered in the record for that vehicle in the na-

tional vehicle register. This new body had to be included in ATMF. At the request of the rail-

way sector, a certification regime for ECM for freight wagons was introduced. As a conse-

quence, the definition of ECM was added to ATMF Article 2 (Definitions). The definition of

“open points” was also added to ATMF Article 2 (Definitions). “Open points” were defined as

essential requirements that had not been specified in detail, but only listed in the TSI/UTP.

ad 3.

Amendments to ATMF:

The four cases a) – d) were now resolved in ATMF Article 3a, which deals with migration

between the EC and OTIF systems, and in Article 6 § 3, which deals with validity (cross-

acceptance) of the admission to operation. The paragraphs dealing with the different cases

were:

case a) Article 6 § 3;

case b) Article 3a § 3;

case c) Article 3a § 1;

case d) Article 3a § 2.

14


Acceptance between OTIF and EC for authorisation in cases c) and d) is based on four condi-

tions:

1. TSI and UTP must be equivalent,

2. All aspects are covered by TSI/APTU,

3. There are no “open points” and

4. No derogations.

This meant that all technical requirements were harmonised, and fulfilment of these require-

ments creates the cross-acceptance between the two sets of legislation and allows the vehicle

to cross the border without any additional approval. These principles were implemented in

Article 3a § 1 and 2, which exactly reflected the approach taken in the EC legislation for

cross-acceptance.

Article 3a § 3 resolved the problem of the movement of vehicles approved in the EC MS and

moving between EC MS; there are no obligations under APTU or ATMF- these vehicles have

to meet the requirements of EC legislation and any additional national legislation of the EC

MS.

In Article 6, a new § 3 was added to deal with cross-acceptance of the admission to operation.

If full harmonisation of the technical requirements was achieved and no specific cases, no

open points and no derogations in the technical prescription existed, all vehicles could run

under the cross-acceptance principle and no additional checks would be allowed.

The competent authority may ask the applicant for additional technical information if the har-

monised requirements have not been met (e.g. specific cases in one country, or open points in

the applicable APTU UTPs, or if in a specific project a MS had derogations or in the event

that not all the necessary regulations were covered in the APTU UTPs). On the other hand, the

competent authority has to accept verifications that have already been undertaken considering

the equivalence table.

The validity of technical certificates was extended to include an admission of a type of con-

struction in EC legislation and also in ATMF Article 6 § 5.

Derogations were now dealt with in Article 7 in a simplified way giving the CTE the compe-

tence to adopt guidelines or mandatory provisions (Article 7a).

ATMF Article 10 described the procedure for applying and granting Technical Certificates. In

principle, they would be issued for an unlimited period (different to the EC approach). This

incompatibility was resolved in Article 10a, which describes the procedure concerning the

design type certificate in the event that the relevant technical prescriptions were changed and

no transitional provisions were included in the changed regulations.

Article 14 resolved the issue of harmonisation of inscriptions and signs on vehicles.

Article 15 took care of the important issue of the maintenance of the vehicle, where the new

body, the ECM, has been included, thus bringing this provision completely into line with the

Safety Directive.

15


The transitional provisions, including grandfather rights for RIV, RIC and “grid” (agreement

between two or more countries) marked vehicles, were resolved in Article 19.

Annexes I and II (Technical file and Maintenance file), which were referred to in Article 19 of

ATMF, were deleted. Instead, a more flexible solution would be to bring them into force by

decision of the CTE on the basis of Article 8 § 8. These amendments to ATMF achieved

equivalence between the approach of the European Community and of COTIF.

Amendments to APTU:

All definitions used in APTU and ATMF were included in Article 2 of ATMF in (English)

alphabetical order. APTU contained definitions of terms used in APTU only. Two definitions

were added to APTU Article 2 (Definitions): “Project in advanced state of development”

(used for derogations in EC legislation) and “Substitution in the framework of maintenance”.

The technical annexes in Article 8 of APTU were renamed “Uniform Technical Prescriptions

(UTP)”.

With regard to the validation of technical standards, new §§ 3 and 4 were added to Article 5,

giving the OTIF Secretariat the obligation to publish validated technical standards on the

OTIF website. The application of these standards was voluntary. UTPs should be published on

the OTIF website with their date of entry into force. The OTIF website should also contain an

updated list of UTPs with information on which Contracting States apply them. Harmonisa-

tion of the TSIs and UTPs could be seen from the two-column format described in Article 8.

The rules concerning the entry into force of UTPs were described in Article 12. The Contract-

ing States had to inform the Secretariat of all their national technical requirements within 3

months after the entry into force of the revised APTU (the date of entry into force will be 12

months after the adoption of the revised APTU). If a new or updated UTP entered into force,

the Contracting States had to inform the Secretariat of the national technical requirements that

are no longer required (because replaced by the UTP) within 6 months.

Article 13 dealt with the equivalence document for Rolling Stock (cross-acceptance list) and

contained structured national requirements of which the Secretariat had been informed and the

classification of these national technical requirements as:

A: international standards. B: rules that do not fall within the scope of A or C, or that it has

not yet been possible to classify in A or B, and C: rules strictly necessary and associated with

technical infrastructure characteristics.

For standards classified as A, no additional checking was allowed. It was not yet possible to

harmonise the rules classified as C.

The CTE could decide to declare equivalence between

- national technical requirements of different Contracting States;

- (APTU) UTP and TSI and

- (APTU) UTP and national requirements.

This equivalence should be indicated in the equivalence document.

16


The EC representative declared that from a technical point of view the revised APTU and

ATMF Appendices as drafted by the re-activated “Schweinsberg” group caused no problems

for the Community. However, the opinion of the EC legal service was still awaited and could

be expected by the end of March 2009.

The CTE supported two proposals from RS: Article 11 § 6 to read: “The certificates shall be

printed in one of the official working languages of the Organisation.” In Article 14 § 1 it

should be ensured that the registration should be made in the (first) admitting State using the

country code of that State.

The CTE expressed thanks to Mr. Schweinsberg for chairing this ad-hoc group, to the MS

who had contributed and to the Secretariat.

Conclusions:

1. The CTE agreed to submit the proposed amendments to the APTU and ATMF Ap-

pendices to the Revision Committee for adoption.

2. The Secretariat would, when submitting the documents to the Revision Committee,

prepare new wordings taking into consideration the two proposals from Serbia and a

remark from the EC concerning a contradiction between Article 6 § 1 and Article 10 §

4 .

3. The opinion of the EC legal service was expected by the end of March 2009.

4. The starting date for a session of the Revision Committee (23 June 2009) to deal with

the legal adoption of these amendments to APTU and ATMF was considered feasible

by the members of the CTE and by the European Commission.

6. Report from the Committee of Technical Experts working groups

After a short presentation by the Secretariat of the activities of the two working groups, the

CTE discussed the closing of WG LEGAL and the continuation of the preparatory work for

the CTE by making WG TECH into a standing working group. The use of one working lan-

guage by the standing group was also discussed.

Conclusions:

1. The CTE took note of the report from the CTE working groups, WG LEGAL and WG

TECH, on their activities since the 2nd

session of the CTE.

2. The CTE decided to close the working group WG LEGAL as it had finished its task.

3. The CTE decided to turn WG TECH into a “Standing group of the Committee of

Technical Experts” (according to Article 22 of the Rules of Procedure of the CTE).

4. In accordance with Article 24 of the RP, the CTE also decided that bearing in mind

the good results of WG LEGAL and WG TECH, the working language of this standing

working group should continue to be English only.

17


5. The EC representative declared its readiness to participate in the work of the “Stand-

ing working group of the Committee of Technical Experts”.

6. The CTE thanked the chairman of WG LEGAL for the work it had achieved.

7. APTU Annexes – for adoption

For the 8th

session of WG TECH (Paris, 20 November 2008), the Secretariat had redrafted

five APTU Annexes in a two column layout. The content was now adapted to the new Inter-

operability Directive 2008/57/EC. These Annexes would enter in force six months after adop-

tion by the CTE. These Annexes contained general provisions and covered all subsystems.

WG TECH supported submitting all the Annexes to the CTE, with the exception of Annex 1-D

ASSESMENT MODULES, as in the EC, the basic requirements for the modules had been re-

vised in the middle of 2008. The Secretariat would check whether it could prepare a revised

Annex 1-D based on the ERA implementation of these revised modules in the TSIs (expected

by the end of 2009) or whether it could draft a “concept document” for the next CTE.

7.1 Annex 1-A: ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS

The EC representative proposed in this Annex to replace in point 1.4.1 “the national provi-

sions in force” with “the provisions in force in the State of application”. This proposal was

fully supported by the Secretariat.

There was a nominal vote on this proposal for amendment, with the following result: in fa-

vour: Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Czech Republic, Liechtenstein, the former Yugoslav

Republic of Macedonia, Poland, Switzerland; none against; abstention: Romania. The EC

proposal was adopted.

The result of the vote on the adoption of Annex 1-A ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS as a

whole: 7 in favour, none against, 1 abstention.

Conclusion:

Annex 1-A ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS with the amendments adopted during this ses-

sion was adopted.

7.2 Annex 1-B: SUBSYSTEMS

The Secretariat explained that this Annex imposed the same definitions of subsystems as in

Annex II of the Interoperability Directive 2008/57/EC in order to have the same division into

subsystems in OTIF and EC regulations.

The EC representative would accept this Annex with one amendment. It proposed in section

2.3 to use the same text as in the Interoperability Directive but insert “on-board” before

“equipment”.

After a discussion between CH, the Secretariat, EC representative, H and CER on other

solutions, a joint proposal for to amend point 2.3 was submitted, as follows:

18


2.3 All the equipment necessary to ensure safety and to command and control

movements of trains authorised to travel on the network.

COTIF includes this only to the extent

related to the vehicles and to the inter-

faces with the vehicles and other mov-

able railway material.

The result of the vote on this amendment to point 2.3 in Annex 1-B: SUBSYSTEMS: 5 in

favour, none against, 3 abstentions.

The result of the vote on the adoption of Annex 1-B: SUBSYSTEMS as a whole: 5 in favour,

none against, 3 abstentions.

Conclusion:

Annex 1-B SUBSYSTEMS with the amendment adopted during this session was adopted.

7.3 Annex 1-C: TECHNICAL FILE

No discussion was required.

The result of the vote on the adoption of Annex 1-C: TECHNICAL FILE: 7 in favour, none

against, 1 abstention.

Conclusion:

Annex 1-C: TECHNICAL FILE was adopted.

7.4 Annex 1-E: ASSESSING ENTITY – QUALIFICATIONS AND INDEPEND-

ENCE

The Secretariat explained that in order to ensure the same degree of reliability for the as-

sessments in the EC and OTIF and hence to achieve cross-acceptance of the assessments, the

criteria in this Annex were equivalent to those for the Notified Bodies in the EC.

The EC representative commented that the more demanding criteria in section 2.4 of the

document were different to those in the EC regulations, which could cause difficulties. In WG

TECH the EC representative had already expressed its concerns. It was not clear why the

criteria in OTIF should be more demanding than in the European Community for the Notified

Bodies and the EC representative asked the Secretariat to withdraw this requirement.

The Secretariat explained that the extension clarified what “proper vocational training”

meant in order to ensure safe communication between the authorities, the assessing bodies and

between the applicant and the assessor. This extension would not jeopardise cross-acceptance

and the Secretariat proposed that the CTE should adopt this text and ask the EC to adapt their

regulations accordingly. The EC representative replied that the railway system had a suffi-

cient level of safety and it did not consider the lack of this criterion to be a safety risk and was

not considering increasing the safety requirements. In the context of the Railway Safety Direc-

tive, ERA was required to draft proposals in the field of Common Safety Methods and Common

Safety Targets with three objectives: to support market opening, to develop a common approach to

19


safety, to maintain the safety level which existed in the EU when the Safety Directive was adopted

(29 April 2009). On the other hand ERA was also monitoring safety performances and if prob-

lems appear, ERA might propose measures in order to improve safety performances where

reasonably practicable; however such measures would be accompanied by an impact assess-

ment because safety can not be improved at any cost. The EC representative did not think the

language requirement proposed by the Secretariat was justified. The EC could examine the

issue in the future by revising the Interoperability Directive. Experience with the Notified

Bodies had not indicated any problems of this type.

H asked whether this language criterion was a condition for approving the functioning of the

assessment body, as it could be a serious economic problem. The decision concerning lan-

guages should not be regulated, but should be resolved on a contractual basis between the par-

ties involved. The provision “proper” should be understood only to require that the assessing

body should have language skills in the technical field. H supported the EC’s proposal.

The Secretariat considered its proposal as a condition for an assessing body (Notified Body)

to take on the assessing task for the client.

The result of the vote on deleting the following text from section 2.4 on the left-hand side:

“including the languages professionally used by the entity, its (accepted) clients and business

partners, in particular the technical terminology” of Annex 1-E: ASSESSING ENTITY -

QUALIFICATIONS AND INDEPENDENCE: 5 in favour, none against, 4 abstentions.

The Secretariat stressed the importance of everybody’s using the same interpretation of

“proper vocational training”. The Secretariat still feared that misunderstandings due to differ-

ent languages being used could be a safety risk. It would follow this up, and was looking for-

ward to receiving feedback from the Member States and the EC on experiences in connection

with this issue.

The result of the vote on adopting Annex 1-E: ASSESSING ENTITY - QUALIFICATIONS

AND INDEPENDENCE: 6 in favour, none against, 3 abstentions.

Conclusion:

Annex 1-E: ASSESSING ENTITY - QUALIFICATIONS AND INDEPENDENCE, with the

deletion adopted at this session, was adopted.

7bis Preliminary information from the Secretariat on future consultation of non EC

OTIF Member States concerning draft TSIs

In a letter dated 12 January 2009 the EC informed the Secretary General that OTIF (as con-

cerns the opinion of the non-EC OTIF MS) would from now on be consulted at the same time

as the user organisations whose opinion must be taken into account when drafting, adopting

and revising the TSIs. A period of only 3 months was allowed for the whole consultation pro-

cedure. In document CTE3/INF.6 (available in the meeting and on the OTIF website), the Se-

cretariat presented a procedure for the consultation of non-EC OTIF MS, starting from the

preliminary draft produced by ERA. The preliminary draft would be submitted in three lan-

guages (English original and French and German translations) to the Secretariat, which would

distribute them to all non-EC OTIF MS with the invitation to an information workshop. For

each draft TSI, the EC-OTIF MS would receive information about the initiation of the proce-

20


dure. Each non-EC MS should nominate a coordinator to provide its response to the consulta-

tion. The information workshop, the aim of which would be to answer questions of under-

standing, would take place approximately three weeks after distribution of the draft TSI by the

Secretariat.. The ERA project officers responsible for drafting the TSI would be invited to this

workshop. In the six weeks following this workshop the non-EC OTIF MS would consider the

draft and prepare their comments and proposals for amendments to be sent to the Secretariat.

At the same time, necessary requests for “specific cases” could be made (if possible). The

Secretariat would prepare a consolidated proposal for amendments to the TSI and send it to

ERA, EC and all OTIF MS.

On the EC side the procedure for the production and adoption of the TSI would continue as

usual, but would also take into account the non-EC OTIF MS’ opinion when the final draft is

prepared by ERA. The Commission’s proposal based on the final draft from ERA would be

discussed with the EC MS in the RISC Committee in order to obtain the EC MS’ opinion. The

adopted TSI and the date for its entry into force would be published in the EC Official Jour-

nal.

On the OTIF side the Secretariat would transpose the TSI into a corresponding APTU Annex

(Uniform Technical Prescription) in the two-column layout. This APTU Annex would be dis-

cussed in the Standing Technical Working Group (WG TECH) and after agreement in that

WG, it would be submitted to the CTE for adoption.

The CTE welcomed the opportunity given to the non-EC OTIF MS to give their comments

and proposals on the draft TSIs. Certainly this opportunity was challenging and would cause a

substantial amount of work both for the non-EC OTIF MS, of which some are less familiar

with TSIs, and for the Secretariat.

CER proposed that it should be included in this consultation procedure by inviting it to the

workshop.

The Secretariat replied that it already considered it very useful to invite not only the ERA

project officers responsible for the drafting of TSIs to the information workshop, but also the

representatives of organisations such as CER, EIM, UIP and UNIFE who had taken part in the

TSI Working Parties, so that the information on the TSIs provided at the workshop would be

as up to date and as expert as possible.

The Secretariat referred to the “Guidelines” (Document CTE3/INF.6), especially the table in

its Annex 2; these were not instructions, but should be seen as a support tool for the non-EC

OTIF MS in planning and producing their response to the consultation.

The EC representative proposed that this item deserved more thoughtful discussion, perhaps

in a working group, because there was not enough time to discuss this proposal in detail.

F fully supported the view of the EC representative. Additionally, as a MS which contributes

to the funding of OTIF, F stressed that the OTIF proposal for consultation of the non-EC

OTIF MS would have an impact on the OTIF budget. The financial impact of this proposal

should be discussed at a higher level. First of all the EC MS should be consulted and other

options be checked for achieving the same results at less cost. This item should be discussed

in more details before the procedure was started.

21


The Secretariat replied that this item was for information only and the aim was to consider

this proposal thoroughly after the CTE session. The CTE was not responsible for the financial

aspects of OTIF; this was the responsibility of OTIF’s Administrative Committee. Every OTIF

activity that might impact on the OTIF budget was carefully planned and justified before be-

ing approved by the Administrative Committee, which was composed of one-third of the

OTIF Member States.

8. National Vehicle Register (NVR) for non-EC OTIF Member States – for adop-

tion

8.1 Setting up of the NVR in non-EC OTIF Member States

The Secretariat explained that WG TECH had also discussed the proposal to adopt manda-

tory rules compatible with those of the EC for the setting up of NVRs in the non-EC OTIF

Member States. The document submitted for adoption reflected the outcome of this discus-

sion.

The EC representative presented 4 proposals for amendments to the document which were

discussed and voted upon separately: (NB: text added is underlined, text deleted is crossed

out).

1. To amend the text in INTRODUCTION point 4 as follows:

“The European Railway Agency (ERA), having developed a standard NVR for EC Mem-

ber States, has in the OTIF WG TECH meeting in Prague in June 2008 offered the devel-

oped standard NVR the use of this software to the non-EC OTIF Member States for 5,000

€ each and to the Secretary General a license for an unlimited number of Member States

and records for 15,000 €. The connection to and the use of the VVR (NVR?) hosted by

ERA is supposed to be free of charge”.

7 in favour, none against and 2 abstentions.

2. To delete the last paragraph in the ANNEX, section 1 DATA concerning the owner.

8 in favour, none against and 1 abstention.

3. To amend the description of data element 4:

4. EC/OTIF reference Compulsory

Content Reference to the declaration of verification, if any, and the issuing

body (contracting entity)

4.1. Date of declaration, if any Date

4.2. EC/OTIF reference, if any Text

4.3. Name of Contracting entity Text

4.4. Registered business number Text

4.5. Address of the organisation,

street and number

Text

4.6. Town Text

Format

4.7. Country code ISO

22


4.8. Post code Alphanumeric code

9 in favour, none against and no abstentions.

4. To replace the text “placing into service” in the ANNEX point 4.1.13 with “admission to

operation” (twice).

The proposal was adopted without a vote.

5. To replace the text “and” in the ANNEX point 4.2, last line with “or”.

The proposal was adopted without a vote.

RS proposed that the indication of the VKM in data element 8.7 in the Annex should not be

voluntary but compulsory if a code had been assigned to the keeper in question. However,

with 9 Member States of the Committee of Technical Experts present (Member States which

have made a declaration according to Article 42 of the Convention are not members of the

Committee) the proposal was not adopted, although the voting was 2 in favour, 1 against and

6 abstentions, but according to Article 16 § 4 point a), a proposal must be supported by at least

one-third of the number of Member States represented at the time of the vote.

Conclusion:

The CTE adopted the NVR document, as amended by the proposals adopted above: 8 in fa-

vour, 0 against and 1 abstention.

The Secretariat will check the whole document before notification and include any necessary

consequential editorial amendments in order to align with the proposals adopted.

9. VKM (Vehicle Keeper Marking)

9.1 Amendment to point 3.1.6 in the Rules of Registration – for adoption

The Secretariat explained that WG TECH had submitted this proposal for an amendment in

order to clarify the rules for the possible refusal of an application for a code. The proposal was

to delete the requirement that the VKM may not be a meaningful or an obscene word, which

might differ depending on the language used. It should instead be required that the VKM

must not lead to confusion or deception.

ERA, as part of the agreement on the Rules of Registration of a VKM, supported the pro-

posal.

The proposal was adopted: 6 in favour, none against and 3 abstentions.

Conclusion:

Section 3.1.6 would now read:

“The National Authorities, the Agency or OTIF may refuse the registration of a requested

VKM if the letter combination might lead to confusion or deception. In this case a justified

decision shall be issued.”

23


9.2 Cooperation with the Organization for Cooperation of Railways (OSJD)

The Secretariat presented its document and explained that OSJD was still considering

whether it should accede to the VKM system or not. The Secretariat had so far assigned a

VKM code for each of the national railways of the OSJD Member States which are not mem-

bers of OTIF, plus some “private” railways/keepers found by searching the internet.

Conclusion:

The CTE took note of the information from the Secretariat.

10. Memorandum of Understanding establishing the basic principles of a common

system of verification of entities of charge of maintenance for freight wagons

In a presentation, the EC representative explained the background to and necessity of the

MoU (see session document CTE 3/INF. 7). The MoU was a transitional solution for the pe-

riod until the EC can have regulations in force for mandatory certification of the Entities in

charge of maintenance (ECM), which could be as late as 2012. 10 EC Member States had

already indicated their intention to sign the MoU. The Secretariat had asked for non-EC OTIF

Member States to be able to participate in the MoU as well; the EC had accepted that and the

specific rules relating to OTIF were included in Annex F of the MoU.

The Secretariat strongly recommended the non-EC OTIF Member States to sign up to the

MoU in order to minimise repeated technical inspections by the carrying railways when a ve-

hicle authorised in a non-EC OTIF Member State was included in its train. According to the

Safety Directive, a railway in the EC is responsible for safety, including the maintenance, of

the vehicles that it carries, and this might encourage railways, when taking over a vehicle, to

carry out extensive technical inspections and tests in order to be sure not to risk being liable

and, in the worst case, to lose its safety certificate. If rail transport were to compete with road

transport, such time-consuming checks should be avoided. The certification and audit system

on which the MoU is based should give the railways and the authorities the neccesary evi-

dence to rely on the safety of vehicles maintained by a certified ECM. The MoU ensures that

the certificates will be mutually recognised.

11. Work programme of the Committee of Technical Experts

The Secretariat explained that as it is expensive to hold the CTE, only one session a year was

planned. It had not been able to draft a specific programme and timetable as the CTE work

programme would depend very much on the development of the TSIs. The next session might

deal with APTU Annex 1-D (assessment modules) and the APTU Annexes corresponding to

TSIs (some of them amended), which, presumably, would be adopted by the EC within the

next 12 months, i.e. TSI locomotives and passenger vehicles, TSI Infrastructure, TSI Energy,

TSI Operation, TSI freight wagon, and TSI Command Control Systems.

The EC representative proposed that WG TECH should discuss and draft a work programme

to be presented at the next session.

The Secretariat and the Chairman asked the non-EC OTIF Member States to inform the

Secretariat of which priorities they might have.

24


12. Any other business

The Secretariat drew the attention of delegates to the problems that the Secretariat had at the

moment as a result of the resignation of the translator for German and French; a circular had

been issued with a call for applications for this vacant post.

13. Next session

The CTE decided unanimously to hold its next session on 21/22 April 2010.

The Chairman closed the session by thanking the delegates from the Member States and or-

ganisations, who this time had participated in greater numbers than before and had contributed

to the discussions and the atmosphere of cooperation. He also thanked the European Commis-

sion and ERA for their constructive contributions, the Secretariat for the successful prepara-

tion and hard work and the interpreters for their, as always, excellent interpretation. It was

now up to delegates to explain and support the decisions taken at this session, particularly

with regard to the regulations that had been adopted.

committee of technical experts session minutes€¦ · the deputy secretary general (sg) of otif...

Documents