Read Microsoft Word - G8499-E.doc text version


Geneva, 14 April 2008

IRU INTERNATIONAL TECHNICAL COMMISSION (CIT) Almeria, SP Thursday, 27 March 2008 LIST OF DECISIONS AND REPORT The list of participants is attached as Annex 1

List of decisions and report of the IRU International Technical Commission (CIT) meeting, Almeria, 27 March 2008. LIST OF DECISIONS IV. APPOINTMENT OF GEMD PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT (TERMS 2008-2009)

Mr Mikhail Nizov (ASMAP) was re-elected as CIT President. Mr Yves Mannaerts (FBAA) was re-elected as CIT Vice-President. Mr Mårten Johansson (SÅ) was elected as CIT Vice-President. V. CORRECT LOADING SECURING (FOR DECISION) (CIT/G8333) The IRU position was adopted by the majority of the participants and the revision of the EN Standard 12195-1 approved, harmonising the conditions for all parties involved in a transport chain concerning cargo securing. Members were asked to contact their national standardisation institutes (CEN) in order to support the revision before 24 June 2008. It was agreed that the distribution of responsibilities between the responsible parties within the freight chain needed to be clearly defined by EU legislation. All responsible persons for the loading process needed to comply with these basic safety regulations. Vehicles should be used so that the technical gross vehicle weight was never exceeded, and the body structure needed to meet safety requirements. Better vehicle scales needed to be developed to assist with correct loading from the outset. VI. TYRES FITTING REQUIREMENTS (FOR DECISION) (CIT/G8304) Regarding harmonisation of rules concerning the fitment of tyres, this was a sine qua non condition in order to avoid major discrimination during road side check and periodical inspection. Directive 92/23/EC and Regulations 54 and 109 defined types of tyres but led to different interpretations in practice in most countries. The IRU and its Members needed to work closely with ETRTO in order to find an agreement on the definition of types of tyres, in order to avoid differences of interpretations between countries. *****



The President (Mr Mikhail Nizov, ASMAP) welcomed all Members. The submitted provisional agenda was adopted. II. APPROVAL OF THE REPORT OF THE IRU CIT MEETING HELD ON 26 SEPTEMBER 2007 Mr Colin Copelin (CPT) pointed out that in his statement under point VI, "UK" meant CPT and not the UK Government. There were no additional comments on the report. The report was approved. III. STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT Mr Nizov welcomed all participants and thanked MIchelin for organising the meeting and the visit of their proving ground in Almeria (CEMA). He reminded participants that their feedback and participation played a vital role and aided in reinforcing IRU lobby actions towards governments. IV. APPOINTMENT OF GEMD PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT (TERMS 2008-2009) Mr Jacques Marmy (IRU) explained the IRU code of conduct for the election of the President and Vice-President and that the period of office of the board should be of two years and was renewable. Mr Marmy mentioned that the IRU Secretariat General had received one proposal for the elections, from the Swedish Association of road haulage companies (SÅ) who had proposed Mr Mårten Johansson for the position of Vice-President. Mr Mikhail Nizov (ASMAP) was re-elected as CIT President, Mr Yves Mannaerts (FBAA) was reelected as CIT Vice-President and Mr Mårten Johansson (SÅ) was elected as CIT Vice-President. V. CORRECT LOADING SECURING (FOR DECISION) (CIT/G8333)

Mr Nizov presented the aim of the document, which was to have a harmonisation of cargo securing in order to ensure recognised practices for all parties involved in a transport chain. Mr Johansson made a short presentation (click on the link for his presentation) on the actual situation and the benefit of having a harmonised standard for cargo securing and to put the responsibility in the right place. Mr Ken Moore (IVECO) indicated that it was not known if the strength of the body EN 12642 requirement was applied in all countries. The IRU needed to add into their recommendation that the body structure needed to meet safety requirements. Mr Marmy (IRU) indicated that the unloaders of vehicles needed to be included in the responsible parties of correct loading securing. The Members approved and supported the general comments. Ambro Smit (TLN) indicated his concern if Germany was opposed to this document, and asked what the situation would be in this case. Mr Johanssson indicated that the rev EN 12195-1 was going to be voted on by June 2008 at the CEN level, so a majority of countries needed to vote in favour of the rev EN 12195-1. Mr Marmy presented and distributed the BGL position, which was against the revision EN 12195, as it did not reinforce the safety aspect of cargo securing. Mr Ray Engley (RHA) stated that they were supporting the revision; even if it did not offer any real improvement over the current IMO standards. Mr Smit asked if the sentence of the fourth paragraph of the IRU position could be changed to "Vehicles should be constructed and used so that the technical gross vehicle weight is never exceeded". The IRU position was adopted by the majority of the participants with the proposed modification. VI. TYRES FITTING REQUIREMENTS (FOR DECISION) (CIT/G8304)

Mr Nizov guided Members through the document, which raised a large concern from the Michelin Group. Mr Jean-Jacques Almon clearly stated that the fitment of tyres on vehicles on national level was a soource of great confusion, and in some cases some interpretation was not supported by the tyre industry. All regulation was done by different people in different Member States, which caused contradictory requirements. Mr Copelin mentioned that they did not have problems with coaches, but it could occur that with spare tyres an issue might be raised, as the spare tyre was not the same as the ones mounted on the vehicle, but must for instance have the same technical

3 specification as the other ones, such as load index, tyre sizes and so on. Mr Mannaerts (FBBA) added that it was quite common to have different trademarks or manufacturer names, because once a tyre has been exchanged for a spare one, they did not want to have a big loss, and the tyre was used, otherwise it would have to be dropped off in the workshop once the vehicle returned to its home base. The IRU should raise the issue of the manufacturer name as this was very important for the profession. Mr Moore indicated that the type approval directive was set for approval and roadside inspections were based on 96/96/EC and not on 92/23/EC. Mr Nizov emphasised that all manufacturers provide vehicles which comply with requirements, but it would be good if all tyres could also have the same characteristics and the same price. He asked if an agreement could be found on the different tyres stating that they were equal. Mr Almon said that these questions needed to be brought to ETRTO and their specialists. The market was world wide. Today manufacturers were working on the same tyre standards and physical rules (ETRTO), and if in some Far East countries, manufacturers did not follow the ETRTO rules, for them the same safety levels could not be guaranteed. He proposed that the Commission try to redefine the "manufacturer" definition which was included in Annex 4 of the directive. Mr Copelin stated that to try to ensure accurate roadside checks by different enforcement bodies was difficult. Tyre load indexes and manufacturer names were two different questions. So before starting, the Commission would need to clearly understand all the issues raised by their trade associations. Mr Mannaerts raise the issue of winter tyres; in some Member States it was mandatory as from 15 November to mid-April, and the question was whether there was a need to have an overall date to cover the problem and to avoid differences between EU Member States. Mr Nizov concluded that the IRU Secretariat would work with ETRTO in order to find a solution concerning the issue of the manufacturer name or trademark. Mr Marmy indicated that the Secretariat would issue a revised IRU position once a compromise solution had been reached with ETRTO. Mr Copelin concluded that harmonisation is needed in this sector. VI. SUPER SINGLE TYRES (FOR INFORMATION) (CIT/G8305)

Mr Marmy summarised all comments received from Members concerning super single tyres and a long debate began, with a majority of the participants mentioning that a clear definition was needed of what was meant by super single tyres. He indicated that in order to avoid critical down time situations for drivers when operating with these kinds of niche tyres, and as there was no wellspread distribution of such tyres by the manufacturers, road transport companies should be warned to have adequate support to handle downtime when vehicles got stuck along roadsides. Mr Johansson indicated this type of tyre was very good for fuel consumption. The only issue really seen was with 4X2 if there was an explosion. The IRU recommendations needed to include that such a tyre should not be equipped with a single tyre axle. For dangerous goods vehicles there was no problem at all as it was really not an issue to have these tyres on trailers. Mr Moore declared that this type of tyre represented an innovation, with better rolling resistance, and would create huge advantages. Today a tyre in the front axle (steering axle) and dual tyres were more of an issue than the super single tyres. It was true that this was actually a niche market, but for fleet management criteria it was an opportunity to save money and increase safety. Mr Rune Damm (NLF) stated that these tyres were used in Norway. Vehicles should have place for this type of tyre and they were widely used on dangerous goods vehicles. This represented an important step towards the protection of the environment and cost benefits on vehicles were more stable. Tyre dealers should achieve better fleet service maintenance and dual tyres were more of an issue in Norway. Finally it was more complicated to swap dual tyres than a super single tyre. Mr Mannaerts indicated such tyres were not used on coaches and he felt that this was not currently a concern, but it might occur in the near future, and it seem to him that it would be difficult to have two set of spare tyres, one for a normal size tyre and one for the super single. Mr Damm mentioned that the super single tyres were on all trailers, and he had noticed during his trip from Alicante to Almeria that all trailers were already really equipped with super single tyres. Mr Smit added that 80% of trailers in the Netherlands were mounted with super single tyres. Mr Moore indicated that super single tyres could be mounted on the drive axle, but Mr Johansson responded that twin tyres on the driving axle was safer than a super single tyre on a single drive axle, but asked what the tyre manufacturer would recommend. Mr Ariel Cabanes (Michelin) answered that ESP and TPMS were

4 strongly recommended in order to avoid critical situations with damage of super single tyres. Mr Moore concluded that the IRU should write a safety recommendation on tyre fleet operation, including distribution. Mr Nizov concluded that ESP and TPMS should be used with super single tyres and that tyre manufacturers should give more indications on such types of tyres through statements on their performance in winter conditions with M+S super single tyres, and concerning which vehicles they really work better with. The road transport industry needed to know the manufacturers' recommendations. VII. TYRES LEGISLATION REQUIREMENTS PRESENTATION

Mr. Almon (Michelin) briefed IRU Members on actual tyre legislation requirements (click on the link for his presentation). VIII. EURO VI PROPOSAL STANDARDS (FOR INFORMATION) (CIT/G8306) Mr Mannaerts guided Members through the IRU comments on the Euro VI proposal standards and this was followed by a short presentation by Mr Dolf Lamerigts (ACEA) (click on the link for his presentation), which was not as detailed as expected. Mr Lamerigts indicated that they had found different results from the Commission, and were in favour of worldwide harmonisation. Mr Mannaerts asked how his members could meet the proposal on new limits. Mr Lamerigts answered that this was the business of the manufacturer but it seemed that the SCR could not be avoided. Mr Mannaerts indicated that actually AdBlue distribution was an important issue, especially since with the OBD system limiting the torque as of 1 October 2007, this would not simplify transport activities which were already under important survey measurements. Also the IRU and its Members found the limit of the lifespan evaluation set at 700,000 km very low and not representative of the real situation of usage of a vehicle, where its mileage was more situated around 1,500,000 km than 700,000 km. Mr Lamerigts stated that manufacturers would meet the standards of the 700,000 km, but Mr Mannaerts responded that the 700,000 km was not enough. Mr Moore indicated that this demonstrated that it met the emission criteria, but Mr Mannaerts added that 700,000 km or seven years was not the situation in reality. Mr Moore stipulated that it was a question of matching the equipment chosen with the lifespan of the vehicles. Mr JeanFrançois Renaudin (Volvo) added that vehicle equipments should be use for the lifespan of a vehicle. It was recognised that a vehicle should be correctly maintained. Mr Copelin asked if the date of entry into force was 2013-2014, and the answer was that it should be implemented for all vehicles by 2014. Mr Mannaerts concluded that the Commission would have preferred to obtain more information concerning solutions that manufacturers were or would be using in order to meet the new incoming requirements on emission limits. IX. OBD ­ TOWARDS A WORLD HARMONISATION OF THE DESIGN RULES

Mr Renaudin gave an interesting presentation on the OBD situation (click on the link for his presentation) and Mr Mannaerts presented the outcome of the document "Access to stored data through On Board Diagnostics" (CIT/G8306) and concluded that road transport operators needed to have full access to OBD recorded data. Mr Renaudin indicated that since the OBD was compulsory as from 1 October 2007, an increase of AdBlue consumption had been noted. Mr Joe Grealy (Transfrigoroute) asked, as the OBD was based on environment and on training people, would it be transmitted electronically through telematics? Mr Renaudin stated that the OBD worked through a CAN communication, and the wireless was not accepted on World Wide Harmonisation OBD. However the ISO was talking about this issue; Euro VI would still be on a CAN system. Mr Johansson asked if it was still necessary to have vehicle inspections, as vehicles had to be brought in to repair if anything wrong happened. Mr Renaudin stated that misusing a system led to penalties, and transport operators must today be prepared to correctly maintain their vehicles, because they were responsible for them. Mr Copelin indicated that if there was a fault code the transport operators would be guilty and would be penalised by enforcement bodies, who were looking into that, and he warned that OBD would bring more challenging issues than benefit for the whole transport industry. If an engine or dashboard light was flashing, what would this mean for a driver? He would know that something was going wrong, but not what the error code meant. Mr Renaudin indicated that codifications of errors were impressive, there were code standardisation

5 systems and the repair bodies were fully aware of these. It was possible to have a diagnostic through the OBD reader. Also the OBD would be part of a real political decision, and it would appear. The OBD had been designed to be extended to analyse high NOx system failure, so care needed to be taken. X. CHECKLIST AGAINST FIRE (CIT/G8307)

The IRU will work on the pictograms and as well on a sort of action list for the driver in case of fire, which would be added to the checklist on comments received by the IRU Secretariat. Once the checklist was finalised Members would be requested to translate it into their national language and to distribute it to all their road transport companies. XI. · MISCELLANEOUS Weight of buses and touring coaches (CIT/G8328)

Mr Marmy asked Members to contact their national authorities in order to include in the upcoming revision of weight and dimension directive 96/53/EC the conclusions of the NEA study. It was obvious that EU rules on masses and dimensions, including reference numbers for passengers and luggage, as stipulated in EU Directive 97/27, and rules on maximum authorised weights and dimensions, as stipulated in EU Directive 96/53, must be adapted to reflect these new realities, including by increasing the maximum authorised weight for two-axle coaches to 19 tonnes, and by promoting equality of treatment for single deck 2 & 3-axle coaches when applying motorway tolls. · Repair service on motorways and escort of vehicles FNTR would be pleased to receive comments and indication on how it towing activities and repairs on motorways were handled in different countries when a breakdown occurred, and how the escort of special vehicles was carried out in different countries. Members are requested to send their experiences to Jacques Marmy at mailto:[email protected], as any comments received would be of great interest for FNTR. XII. · · · · DATES AND PLACES OF THE NEXT MEETINGS Hanover, Germany Monday & Tuesday 29-30 September 2008 (VDA seminar) Turin, Italy, Thursday 26 March 2009 (IVECO) Geneva, Switzerland, Thursday 24 September 2009 (TBD). Geneva, Switzerland, Thursday 25 March 2010 (TBD). *****


CIT/G8499/JMA 14.04.08


Belgium Belgium Bulgaria Czech Republic Denmark France France France France France Ireland Italy Italy Netherlands Norway Poland Russia Slovakia Sweden Sweden Sweden Switzerland Switzerland United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom Excused Denmark France Germany Germany GADE Karsten LEZINEAU Chantal BECKER Michael LABROT Christian DTL AFTRI Daimler BWVL MANNAERTS Yves LAMERIGTS Dolf ATANASSOVA ANTONIA BENEC Pavel CARSTENS, Jørn-Henrik ACCARY Fabrice CABANES Ariel ALMON Jean-Jacques HERVE Edouard RENAUDIN Jean-François GREALEY Joe MOORE Ken BARBERO Francesca SMIT Ambro DAMM Rune MALYSKO Tomasz NIZOV Mikhail SKUTIL Igor JOHANSSON Mårten KARVONEN Seppo STÅL Matin JUNG Marcus MARMY Jacques MAIR Andrew COPELIN Colin ENGLEY Ray FBAA _ VICE-PRESIDENT ACEA AEBTRI CESMAD ITD FNTR MICHELIN MICHELIN RENAULT TRUCKS Volvo Transfrigoroute Int'l IVECO IVECO TLN NLF ZMPD ASMAP _ PRESIDENT CESMAD Slovakia SÅ _ VICE-PRESIDENT VOLVO SCANIA ASTAG IRU FTA CPT RHA


Germany Netherlands New Zealand United Kingdom





Microsoft Word - G8499-E.doc

7 pages

Find more like this

Report File (DMCA)

Our content is added by our users. We aim to remove reported files within 1 working day. Please use this link to notify us:

Report this file as copyright or inappropriate


You might also be interested in

Microsoft Word - G8499-E.doc