UNITED

NATIONS	E

Economic and Social

Council	Distr.

GENERAL

TRANS/WP.15/AC.2/4

4 February 1999

ENGLISH

Original: FRENCH

ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

INLAND TRANSPORT COMMITTEE

Working Party on the Transport

of Dangerous Goods

Meeting of Experts on the European Provisions

concerning the International Carriage of

Dangerous Goods by Inland Waterway (ADN)

REPORT OF THE MEETING OF EXPERTS ON ITS SECOND SESSION

(19 22 January 1999)

CONTENTS

Paragraphs

Attendance	1

Adoption of the agenda	2

European Provisions concerning the International Carriage of

Dangerous Goods by Inland Waterway (ADN)	3 31

Restructuring of ADN	32 34

Cooperation with the Ad Hoc Working Group for the Elaboration

of a draft European Agreement concerning the International

Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Inland Waterway (ADN) (AC.6)	35 80

Programme of work and calendar of meetings	81

Any other business	82 83

Adoption of the report	84

GE.99 20341 (E)

Annexes

Annex 1:	Amendments to the European Provisions concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Inland Waterway (ADN)

Annex 2:	Amendments to adapt the ADN Provisions to the needs of an Agreement

Annex 3:	Proposed amendments to be submitted to the Ad Hoc Working Group (AC.6)

Addendum

Addendum 1:	Amendments to document TRANS/WP.15/148

ATTENDANCE

1.	The Meeting of Experts on the European Provisions concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Inland Waterway held its second session in Geneva from 19 to 22 January 1999, with Mr. K. Ridder (Germany) as Chairman and Mr. G. Kafka (Austria) as Vice-Chairman. Representatives of the following countries took part in its work: Austria; Belgium; Czech Republic; France; Germany; Italy; Netherlands; Portugal; Russian Federation; Switzerland. The Commission of the European Communities was represented. The following intergovernmental organizations were also represented: Central Commission for the Navigation of the Rhine (CCNR) and the Danube Commission. In addition the following non-governmental organizations were represented: European Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC); International Association of Classification Societies (IACS); European Petroleum Industry Association (EUROPIA).

ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

2.	The Meeting of Experts adopted the agenda of its second session as contained in document TRANS/WP.15/AC.2/3.

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE EUROPEAN PROVISIONS CONCERNING THE INTERNATIONAL CARRIAGE OF DANGEROUS GOODS BY INLAND WATERWAY (ADN)

Document: TRANS/WP.15/AC.2/2 (Report of the Meeting of Experts on its

first session)

3.	Where questions still pending from the previous session were concerned, the Meeting of Experts noted that marginal 91 403 of ADNR had been brought into line with ADN (paragraph 12 of the report). The representative of the Netherlands had also been required to furnish a correct sketch of type C independent tank vessels (paragraph 15).

Document: TRANS/WP.15/AC.2/1999/1 (Russian Federation)

4.	The representative of the Russian Federation submitted the proposals contained in this document and stressed the need for ADN to contain provisions which would apply both to inland waterway vessels and to vessels which were also sea-going. It was pointed out that vessels carrying dry cargo according to the relevant requirements of the SOLAS and MARPOL Conventions could be used in accordance with the requirements of Annex B.1, Part 4 of ADN.

Marginal 110 211 (Holds)

5.	It was decided to keep to the present provisions of ADN since the proposed amendments would mean introducing requirements which would duplicate the technical requirements applicable to all inland navigation vessels (annex to resolution No. 17 revised of the Working Party on Inland Water Transport of the Economic Commission for Europe's Inland Transport Committee).

6.	According to marginal 10 001, in the case of vessels intended for the transport of dangerous goods, the requirements of ADN only supplemented those of resolution No. 17 which were generally applicable to all vessels.

Marginal 101 232 (Oil fuel tanks)

7.	The representative of the Russian Federation proposed that fuel tanks should be so designed that there was no direct contact between the fuel and the bottom of the vessel or side plating, in order to prevent pollution of the water in the event of damage to the bottom or side plating.

8.	The representative of CCNR said that this was not logical since direct contact was permitted when the fuel was carried in a tank vessel as cargo. This would amount to calling in question the principle of transport in single-hulled tank vessels and the repercussions of this proposal should be considered.

9.	It was also pointed out that this proposal would concern all vessels and that it would therefore depend rather on the annex to resolution No. 17. It was consequently decided to keep to the present text of ADN.

Marginals 110 292/311 292 (Emergency exit)

10.	The introduction of 0.075 m instead of 0.10 m as the minimum distance above the waterline in the event of damage was not adopted.

Marginals 110 294 (1)/311 294 (Stability (intact))

11.	The proposed amendment was adopted (see annex 1).

Marginals 110 295/311 215 (Stability (damaged condition))

12.	It was decided to keep to the present text of ADN.

Marginal 120 294 (Stability (intact))

13.	The amendment to this marginal, introducing a prohibition on the carriage of unsecured containers, was not adopted, since the marginal concerned the construction of vessels while requirements for stowage were to be found in marginal 10 414. It was decided, however, to bring the French text of marginal 120 294 (4) into line with the English text (see annex 1).

Marginals 3X1 210 (2) (Protection against the penetration of gases)

14.	The representative of the Russian Federation said that, according to his country's experience, there was no need to make provision for door sills if the superstructure was raised above deck-level and formed an open ventilated space above it.

15.	The representative of the Netherlands said that, instead of the proposed amendment, it would be sufficient to replace "sills" by "the lowest sides of the openings".

Marginals 3X1 211 (Hold spaces and cargo tanks)

16.	The representative of the Russian Federation proposed that the permitted maximum volume of a cargo tank should be increased from 380 m3 to 760 m3 as was the case for many tank vessels in his country.

17.	The Chairman replied that it was possible for the Russian Federation to provide for exceptions to the ADN Regulations for its Volga fleet in particular, but that it was dangerous for the safety of navigation on the Rhine and the Danube which passed through numerous built-up areas to permit such large tanks.

18.	The representative of CCNR recalled the historical reasons for the choice of 380 m3 which corresponded to the size of a barge in the 1940s. At the time it had been estimated on the basis of statistics and risk assessment, that the acceptable risk for a tank should not exceed that of a barge and this had led to the maximum volume in question. Before agreeing to an increase in that volume, new studies and risk assessments should be made.

19.	The representative of the Russian Federation said that he could withdraw his proposal for liquefied gases but not for the other products.

20.	He said that the best solution in terms of safety would be to prescribe double bottoms but that it was impossible to transform his country's entire fleet.

21.	The Russian Federation's proposal concerning the size of tanks was not accepted. With regard to the rest of the proposal concerning these marginals, the Meeting of Experts considered that it required prior discussion in the Working Party on Inland Water Transport which was the author of resolution No. 17 revised.

Marginal 311 232 (Fuel tanks)

22.	The amendment to this marginal was not accepted for the same reasons as were put forward for marginal 110 232 (1).

Marginals 321 214 (2) and (3)/331 214 (Stability (intact))

23.	This proposal was not adopted.

Marginals 321 220 (2)/331 220 (2) (Arrangement of cofferdams)

24.	The representative of the Russian Federation proposed that it should be permissible to fill the cofferdams with an inert gas, as an alternative to filling with water, for protection against fire.

25.	The representative of the Netherlands pointed out that inert gases did make it possible to prevent the formation of explosive atmospheres, but that this would not be sufficient protection to prevent the propagation of heat in the event of fire in the engine room, unlike filling with water. The proposal was not adopted.

26.	The proposal not to repeat in Chapters 1, 2 and 3 of Annex B.2, Part 3 the marginals common to the three chapters was not adopted since each chapter concerned a specific type of vessel and must therefore constitute a whole for the reader.

Document: TRANS/WP.15/AC.2/1999/4 (Secretariat)

27.	Several delegations commented that they had only received this document at a very late date and had not had time to study it in detail. Since it was an established principle that the standard of safety of ADN was to be in line with that of ADNR, the Meeting of Experts decided to adopt these proposals to bring ADN into line with ADNR, subject to checking of concordance.

28.	Delegations were invited to transmit any comments, particularly of a drafting nature, by 29 January, so that the amendments proposed in this document could be annexed to the report.

29.	The secretariat was further invited to add amendments to Annex B.2, Appendix 4 to the document.

30.	The secretariat was invited to issue replacement pages, if possible. It would endeavour to submit a consolidated version of the ADN requirements as amended at the current session and the previous session to the Meeting of Experts at its next session. The final revised consolidated version would then be prepared for the diplomatic Conference on the adoption of the draft ADN and subsequently published.

Documents TRANS/WP.15/151 and TRANS/WP.15/153, annex 2

31.	The Meeting of Experts took note of the new amendments to ADR which came into force on 1 January 1999 but considered that they did not affect ADN.

RESTRUCTURING OF ADN

Document: TRANS/WP.15/AC.2/1998/3

32.	A member of the secretariat reported to the Meeting of Experts on progress in the work on the restructuring of RID/ADR.

33.	He said that for ADN there would be adaptations to be made, at least in Annex B.1, since the use of item numbers for the classification of substances would be abandoned and replaced by a new system.

34.	The representative of Germany announced that he was working on a draft restructuring of ADN, following that of RID/ADR, which would be submitted to the Meeting of Experts at its next session.

COOPERATION WITH THE AD HOC WORKING GROUP FOR THE ELABORATION OF A DRAFT EUROPEAN AGREEMENT CONCERNING THE INTERNATIONAL CARRIAGE OF DANGEROUS GOODS BY INLAND WATERWAY (ADN)

Document: TRANS/WP.15/AC.2/1999/2

35.	At the request of the Ad Hoc Working Group (AC.6), the Meeting of Experts considered and adopted unchanged the form for applications for special authorizations under article 7, paragraph 2 of the Agreement, and the criteria for the classification of substances for carriage in tank vessels (see TRANS/WP.15/AC.2/1999/2).

Documents:	TRANS/WP.15/148

TRANS/WP.15/AC.2/2, annex 2

TRANS/WP.15/AC.6/16, -/Add.1 and -/Add.2

36.	Under the chairmanship of Mr. G. Kafka (Vice-Chairman of the Meeting), who had prepared a core document (INF.2) for discussion, the Meeting of Experts considered the requirements of ADN in order to adapt them to the needs of an agreement. The amendments proposed by the Meeting are reproduced in annex 2.

Marginal 10 001 (Applicability of other regulations)

37.	The Meeting agreed to amend paragraph (1) of this marginal in order to refer generally to applicable local, regional or international requirements which would apply to all vessels in accordance with article 9 of the Agreement (see annex 2).

Marginal 10 014 (Definitions)

Regulations

38.	It was suggested that the definition of the acronym ADN should be deleted from this marginal since it was the acronym for the Agreement itself.

Miscellaneous

Competent authority

39.	Since this was a very important concept, the Meeting of Experts proposed that it should be repeated, as it appeared in marginal 6000 (1), and should appear in article 3 of the draft Agreement and in marginals 10 014 and 210 014.

40.	The Chairman said that it would be necessary to come back to this definition in the light of the restructuring of RID/ADR, where in the text for the definition of "competent authority" the word "authority" would be replaced by "body" (French "organisme") in order better to reflect the idea of a body designated by national law, without imposing restrictions linked to the notion of "authority" which in the national law of some States had a very narrow scope.

Classification society (recognized)

41.	The phrase "in accordance with Annex 2, Chapter 4" should be added to the present definition (this also concerned marginal 210 014).

Inspection body

42.	The representative of Belgium proposed that a definition of "inspection body" should be included in marginal 10 014.

43.	The Chairman invited him to submit a proposal in that regard.

Marginal 10 240 (Fire-extinguishing arrangements)

44.	It was decided to refer to the regulations mentioned in article 9 of the draft Agreement instead of the "Recommendations on Technical Requirements for Inland Navigation Vessels" referred to in the first paragraph of marginal 10 240.

45.	The representative of Switzerland said that fixed fire-extinguishing systems in engine rooms were prescribed in marginal 110 240 (2) but that there were no technical requirements on the subject; in the regulations concerning the Rhine, these requirements were to be found in the Rhine Vessel Inspection Regulations. He therefore proposed that the relevant requirements appearing in those Regulations should be included in ADN.

46.	The Meeting noted the importance of these fixed fire-extinguishing systems in engine rooms from the point of view of safety, and agreed that at the least a requirement in keeping with the regulations referred to in article 9 should be added to the requirement contained in marginal 110 240 (2).

47.	Opinions differed, however, as to the need to include the technical requirements in question in the actual text of ADN. It might be preferable to propose them to the SC.3/WP.3 Working Party to add to the annex to Regulation No. 17. In any case, a written proposal would be required.

48.	The representative of the Netherlands said in this context that Annex B.1, Appendix 3, concerning the stability of vessels carrying containers, should be deleted since the requirements in question had been included in Regulation No. 17. Marginals 110 294 and 120 294 should therefore also be amended in order to refer to the regulations mentioned in article 9.

Marginal 10 282 (Certificate of approval)

49.	The Meeting agreed that paragraph (3) should be amended to include a reference to Annex 2 of the Agreement and that paragraphs (5) to (8), which duplicated the requirements in Annex 2, should be deleted.

50.	A member of the secretariat, supported by the representative of CCNR, said that it would not be advisable to distribute the provisions regarding approval of vessels between Annex 1 and Annex 2, and that it would probably be preferable to group them all together, i.e. in Annex 2.

51.	Some delegations, however, felt that certain provisions of primary interest for vessel owners should be kept in Annex 1. Opinions were divided, as all the provisions of Annex 2 would be of primary interest to a vessel owner. It was nevertheless decided that certain provisions would be kept in marginal 10 282 (see Annex 2); the AC.6 Working Group would be asked to take a decision on the question of whether those provisions should also appear in Annex 2, in order to provide a complete Annex with regard to approval of vessels.

52.	It was, in particular, decided to retain paragraph (4) of

marginal 10 282 in its entirety, in order not to have to amend certificate of approval model 1 in Appendix B, which referred to marginal 10 282 (4).

53.	Some amendments were suggested to Annex 2, Chapter 1, paragraphs 1.1.1 (1) and 1.9 (4), concerning the maximum period of

validity of certificates of approval (5 years), as provided for in Annex 1 (see Annex 2). Similarly, paragraph (9) of marginal 10 282 might be reproduced in Annex 2.

Marginal 10 283 (Temporary certificate of approval)

54.	It was agreed not to amend this marginal. In the English version of Annex 2, paragraph 1.1.2, the term "temporary" should be replaced by "provisional".

Marginal 10 381 (1) (e)

55.	The question arose of whether to require that a copy of the entire ADN should be kept on board, or only, as at present, only those parts affecting a given type of transport operation (Annexes A and B.1 for dry cargo, A and B.2 for tank vessels). Opinions were divided, but on the whole most delegations preferred to keep the current situation, while acknowledging that the texts of the Agreement itself, Annex 2, and more probably Annexes 3 and 4 would also be useful on board.

56.	Delegations were asked to think about the question and subparagraph 1 (e) was provisionally amended to include the text of the Agreement, Annex 1 (Annexes A and B.1 in marginal 10 381 and A and B.2 in marginal 210 381) and Annexes 2 to 4 (see Annex 2).

Marginal 10 500 (Marking)

57.	The Meeting decided to retain the reference to Chapter 3 of CEVNI with regard to the marking of vessels, as marking requirements were included in this marginal and CEVNI contained the statutory technical specifications concerning lights and cones for marking. In the interests of harmonizing technical requirements, therefore, it would not be appropriate to refer to regulations provided for in article 9 of the Agreement, which might contain different specifications.

Marginal 10 501 (Mode of navigation)

58.	It was decided to delete the word "local" before the word "authorities", as the designation of a competent authority in a particular area covered by ADN was within the purview of national law, for which reason it was for the official administrative texts to designate the competence of a given individual or body concerning the application of the various provisions of ADN.

Marginals 10 501, 10 504 (4) and 10 508

59.	Several delegations suggested that those marginals should be deleted because the restrictions mentioned in them or the provisions with regard to notifications were covered in other navigation regulations.

60.	A member of the secretariat pointed out that, in view of article 6 of the draft Agreement (State law) and experience with ADR, it would be advisable to maintain in the Annexes to ADN all provisions concerning safety of transport of dangerous goods, or to indicate all cases where, for specific safety reasons, States might unilaterally impose more restrictive measures than those stipulated in the Agreement (see marginal 10 599 of ADR), in order to avoid future disagreements between States over questions relating to facilitation of transport and the elimination of international trade barriers.

61.	The Meeting decided to retain those texts, even if they did duplicate the requirements contained in other regulations. However, the provisions contained in marginal 10 508 could be simplified, and include only provisions specifically relating to the transport of dangerous goods in the context of the notification obligations laid down in other regulations.

Marginals 110 294 (2) and 120 294 (2) and Annex B.1, Appendix 3

62.	The Meeting agreed that Annex B.1, Appendix 3 could be deleted, as the provisions governing stability of container vessels were covered in the regulations referred to in article 9 and as the provisions in question had been included in the Annex to Recommendation No. 17. Marginals 110 294 (2) and 120 294 (2) should be adapted accordingly (see Annex 2).

Annex B.1, Appendix 4

63.	The representative of France felt that there was a contradiction between marginal 10 315 and Annex B.1, Appendix 4, in that marginal 10 315 stipulated that the competent authority must approve the training, whereas Annex B.1, Appendix 4 provided detailed measures for training programmes, which tied the competent authority's hands completely. He therefore suggested that this Appendix should be deleted.

64.	The Chairman referred to the European Commission's desire to harmonize the provisions governing training at the European Union level, for both road and inland waterway transport, in order to guarantee balanced trade competition conditions.

65.	The representative of France was invited to raise the question with the AC.6 Working Group.

Marginals of Annex B.2

66.	The secretariat was asked to make the same amendments to the marginals of Annex B.2 as to the corresponding marginals of Annex B.1 (see Annex 2).

Annexes 3 and 4 of the draft Agreement: Transitional provisions

Document: TRANS/WP.15/AC.2/1999/3

67.	At the request of the AC.6 Working Group, the Meeting of Experts discussed the technical aspects of the transitional provisions.

68.	It was agreed to delete paragraph 3 (a) of the general transitional provisions of Annex 3 and also to delete transitional provisions expiring in 1997 or 1998 which were no longer relevant (see Annex 3).

69.	The representative of Switzerland proposed that all transitional provisions for which the date of renewal for the certificate of approval was approaching should be deleted since all vessels using the Rhine would be brought into compliance before the Agreement entered into force by means of these provisions which currently appeared in ADNR.

70.	The representative of Belgium replied that it would first of all be necessary to consider how these provisions would be applied in the context of Annex 3, i.e. provisions which referred to all vessels whatever the river basin concerned.

71.	The representative of IACS said that he would like it to be clarified what transitional provisions would apply to vessels in construction when the Agreement came into force.

72.	The Meeting of Experts invited the secretariat to divide the table of transitional provisions into two parts - provisions for vessels carrying dry cargo and provisions for tank vessels.

73.	It also invited delegations to submit any proposals to amend these Annexes in writing.

74.	The representative of the Russian Federation stated that his country gave great importance to the Annexes on transitional provisions since there were many questions of a technical nature to raise which required more work.

75.	The Chairman reminded the Meeting that Annex 4 had been planned specifically for the vessels of countries which did not border the Rhine and that he had on numerous occasions, particularly in the Danube Commission, urged those countries - without much success - to submit proposals for Annex 4 on the basis of the state of their current fleet. He therefore invited the representative of the Russian Federation to prepare any proposals he deemed necessary as rapidly as possible so that they could be studied before the diplomatic Conference considered the draft Agreement.

Annex 2, Chapter 2

76.	The Meeting noted that when article 7 of the draft Agreement was drafted arrangements had been made for corresponding provisions, giving the Contracting Parties the possibility of concluding bilateral or multilateral agreements of limited duration among themselves, to appear in Annexes A, B.1 and B.2 of Annex 1, on the model of marginals 2002 and 10 602 of ADR. This possibility also existed in RID and was accepted in the legal framework of the European Union. It was stressed that these special agreements, which were derogations from the provisions of ADN, would be valid only on the territory of Contracting Parties which were signatories to them. In the case of RID and ADR, this possibility was generally used to expedite the implementation of provisions adopted by the United Nations Committee of Experts on the Transport of Dangerous Goods, Working Party WP.15 or the RID/ADR Joint Meeting, before they came into force officially in RID and ADR.

77.	The Meeting also noted that Annex 2 of the draft Agreement contained a Chapter 2 for equivalences and derogations of another type, since it was a question of accepting provisions other than those of ADN but considered to be equivalent from the safety point of view, and of granting derogations for trial purposes. Such equivalences and derogations could only be granted if the Administrative Committee gave a favourable opinion but they were then valid on the inland waterways of all Contracting Parties.

78.	The Chairman pointed out that these derogations or equivalences for special cases would perhaps not be as readily acceptable to the European Commission as those granted under bilateral or multilateral agreements, because of the risk of distorting the rules of fair competition.

79.	The Meeting suggested that article 7 could be amended by adding a paragraph on the subject of derogations and equivalences of this type and that all provisions concerning derogations or equivalences (including bilateral and multilateral agreements) should be grouped in Annex 2, Chapter 2.

80.	The secretariat was invited to submit proposals in this regard to the AC.6 Working Group and to base them on specific examples.

PROGRAMME OF WORK AND CALENDAR OF MEETINGS

81.	The Meeting of Experts noted that its next session would take place from 17 to 21 January 2000. It would consider:

-	proposals for bringing the provisions of ADN into line with ADNR;

-	various proposals for amendments;

-	the text of Annex 1 of the draft ADN Agreement, as prepared by the	secretariat;

-	proposals for the restructuring of ADN, which would be submitted by Germany.

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

Tribute to Mr. J. Döhrn (Germany)

82.	The Meeting noted that Mr. J. Döhrn, who had been participating in the work on ADN since 1986, was retiring and would no longer take part in the sessions of the Meeting of Experts. The Meeting addressed its best wishes to him for a long, happy and successful retirement.

Tribute to Mr. M. Damen (Netherlands)

83.	The Meeting also noted that Mr. M. Damen, who had taken a particularly active role in the preparation of the draft ADN, had just been appointed to new duties and could no longer take part in the work of the Meeting of Experts nor that of the AC.6 Working Group. It wished him every success in his new duties.

ADOPTION OF THE REPORT

84.	The Meeting of Experts adopted paragraphs 1 to 48 of the report; the texts not available in all languages for the reading of the report were adopted by correspondence.

Annex 1

Amendments to the European Provisions concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Inland Waterway (ADN)

1.	Amendments based on document TRANS/WP.15/AC.2/1999/1

110 294 (1)

311 213 Read:

"Intact stability requirements, including those established on the basis of the damage stability calculation, shall be fully observed".

120 294	French text, end, add:

"Cette disposition ne s'applique que si tous les conteneurs sont fixés conformément à la pratique maritime normale et si le document correspondant, confirmant la stabilité, a été agréé par l'autorité compétente."

3X1 210 (2)	Replace "the sills" by "the lowest sides of the openings".

2.	Amendments on the basis of document TRANS/WP.15/AC.2/1999/4

Document TRANS/WP.15/AC.2/1999/4 was adopted in its entirety with the following amendment:

10 500 (1)	In the table, in the first entry for Class 3, in the item number column, add: "6 et 7 (b)".

Annex 2

Amendments to adapt the provisions of ADN to the needs of an Agreement

Document TRANS/WP.15/AC.2/1999/2

The texts for the form for applications for special authorizations and the criteria to be applied for issuing such authorizations were adopted unchanged.

10 001 Amend to read:

(1)	In accordance with article 9 of the Agreement, transport operations shall remain subject to local, regional or international provisions applicable in general to the carriage of goods by inland waterway.

(2)	Where provisions of Parts II, III or IV conflict with provisions of Part I or with the provisions referred to in paragraph (1) above, the provisions of Part I or those referred to in paragraph (1) above shall not apply.

The provisions of marginal 10 011, however, shall take precedence over those of Parts II, III and IV.

(3)	Unchanged.

10 014 Delete the definition of the acronym "ADN";

Insert the definition of "competent authority" as it appears in marginal 6000 (1);

Add to the present definition of "Classification society (recognized)":

"in accordance with Annex 2, Chapter 4".

10 240 Read:

"Each vessel shall be equipped, in addition to the fire-extinguishing

appliances prescribed in marginal 10 001 (1), with at least two

extinguishers ..." (rest unchanged).

10 282 (3) Amend to read:

"The certificate of approval shall be issued in accordance with the requirements and procedures set out in Annex 2. It shall conform to model No. 1 of Appendix 1 to this Annex".

(Delete the last sentence).

210 282 (3) Amend to read:

"The certificate of approval shall be issued in accordance with the requirements and procedures set out in Annex 2. It shall conform to model No. 1 of Appendix 1 to this Annex".

(Last sentence, delete).

210 329 Replace "Recommendations ... Vessels"

and "paragraph 15.9.4 ... Vessels" by "requirements set out in marginal 10 001 (1)".

210 381 (1) (e) Read:

"(e)	A copy of ADN with its Annex 1 (at least Annex A and Annex B.2) and Annexes 2, 3 and 4".

3X1 250 (1) Replace "Recommendations ... Vessels" by:

"requirements set out in marginal 10 001 (1)".

10 282 (4): End, add: "(see also Annex 2, Chapter 1, paragraph 1.10)".

10 282 (5), (6), (7) and (8): Delete.

10 381 (1)(e) Read:

"(e) a copy of ADN with its Annex 1 (at least Annex A and Annex B1) and Annexes 2, 3 and 4".

10 501 and 10 504, Delete "local" after "competent" (delete systematically in all marginals where "local" occurs after "competent").

110 294 (2) and 120 294 (2) Amend to read:

"For the carriage of containers, proof of sufficient stability shall also be furnished in accordance with the provisions of the regulations referred to in marginal 10 001 (1)".

Annex B.1, Appendix 3: Delete and renumber Appendix 4 accordingly.

Annex B.2

210 001 Amend to read:

(1)	In accordance with article 9 of the Agreement, transport operations shall remain subject to local, regional or international provisions applicable in general to the carriage of goods by inland waterway.

(2)	Where provisions of Parts II or III conflict with provisions of Part I or with the provisions referred to in paragraph (1) above, the provisions of Part I or those referred to in paragraph (1) above shall not apply.

The provisions of marginals 210 003 to 210 121, however, shall take precedence over those of Parts II and III.

(3)	Unchanged.

210 014 Delete the definition of the acronym "ADN".

Insert the definition of "competent authority" as it appears in marginal 6000 (1);

Add to the present definition of "recognized classification society":

"in accordance with Annex 2, Chapter 4".

210 240 Read:

"Each vessel shall be equipped, in addition to the fire-extinguishing appliance prescribed in marginal 210 001 (1), with at least two extinguishers ..." (rest unchanged).

210 501 and 210 504

Delete "local" after "competent" (delete systematically in all marginals where "local" occurs after "competent".

Annex 3

Proposed amendements to be submitted to the Ad Hoc Working Group AC.6

Proposed amendments to document TRANS/WP.15/AC.2/1999/3

Page 2: Paragraph 3 (a), delete.

Table: Delete the transitional provisions which expire in 1997 and 1998.

Proposed amendments suggested for document TRANS/AC.6/16/Add.2

Paragraph 1.1.1: Add: "The certificate of approval shall be valid for not less than five years".

Paragraph 1.9 (4): Last sentence, amend to read:

"The validity period, which shall not exceed five years, shall be entered in the certificate of approval".

Proposed amendment to the draft Agreement, article 3 (see TRANS/AC.6/16/Add.1)

Add the following definitions:

(f)	"recognized classification society" means a classification society recognized by the competent authorities in accordance with Annex 2, Chapter 4.

(g)	"competent authority" means the authority designated or recognized as such in each State and in each specific case in connection with the provisions of this Agreement.

(h)	"inspection body" means a body nominated or recognized by the State administration for the purpose of inspecting inland navigation vessels in accordance with the procedures laid down in Annex 2, Chapter 1.