Conformity Assessment Task Force. Minutes First Meeting 30 March 2004

Transcription

1 EUROPEAN ORGANISATION FOR THE SAFETY OF AIR NAVIGATION EUROCONTROL Conformity Assessment Task Force Minutes First Meeting 30 March 2004 Edition Number : 1.0 Edition Date : 20 April 2004 Status : Released Issue Intended for : General Public Category : Working Document EUROCONTROL REGULATORY UNIT

2 WORKING DOCUMENT CATF#1 Minutes DOCUMENT CHARACTERISTICS TITLE Conformity Assessment Task Force First Meeting Minutes 30 March 2004 Reference: Document Identifier Edition Number: 1.0 Edition Date: 20 April 2004 Abstract This document presents the minutes of meeting of the first meeting of the Conformity Assessment Task Force. Keywords Contact Person(s) Tel Unit Mr Jean-Luc Garnier DG/Regulatory Unit DOCUMENT STATUS AND TYPE Status Intended for Category Working Draft General Public Rule Draft Restricted EUROCONTROL Specification Proposed Issue Restricted RC Guideline Released Issue Restricted RU Policy Document Summary of Responses Working Document ELECTRONIC SOURCE Path: R:\WORK PROGRAMME\CONFORMITY ASSESSMENT\CONFORMITY ASSESSMENT TASK FORCE\CATF#1\Minutes Host System Software Size Windows_NT Microsoft Word Kb File: CATF#1-Minutes_v1.0 Page ii of 14

3 DOCUMENT APPROVAL The following table identifies all management authorities who have successively approved the present issue of this document. AUTHORITY NAME AND SIGNATURE DATE File: CATF#1-Minutes_v1.0 Page iii of 14

4 DOCUMENT CHANGE RECORD The following table records the complete history of the successive editions of the present document. EDITION NUMBER EDITION DATE REASON FOR CHANGE PAGES AFFECTED Initial document (draft) All sections Integration of RU/SRU comments All File: CATF#1-Minutes_v1.0 Page iv of 14

5 CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION MEETING PARTICIPANTS MEETING PROPOSED AGENDA WELCOME AND INTRODUCTION APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA THE NEW AND GLOBAL APPROACHES APPLICATION OF THE NEW AND GLOBAL APPROACHES WITHIN THE SINGLE EUROPEAN SKY ATM SAFETY REGULATORY FRAMEWORK BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE FOR THE CONFORMITY ASSESSMENT TASK FORCE VIEWS AND QUESTIONS OF DFS ON THE EC-DECLARATIONS OF CONFORMITY AND VERIFICATIONS APPROVAL EXPERIENCES FROM STNA CONFORMITY ASSESSMENT MECHANISMS CURRENTLY IN USE IN ATM REGULATORY METHODS AND PRACTICES USED IN UK CAA (SRG) ANS CR SAFETY & QUALITY MANAGEMENT AND CERTIFICATION CERTIFICATION OF AIRCRAFT AND RELATED PRODUCTS AND PARTS SAFETY ASPECTS OF CONFORMITY ASSESSMENT MAIN CONCLUSIONS OF THE AIR STUDY REGARDING CONFORMITY ASSESSMENT QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS... 8 File: CATF#1-Minutes_v1.0 Page v of 14

6 18. DISCUSSION OF THE TERMS OF REFERENCE OF THE CONFORMITY ASSESSMENT TASK FORCE DISCUSSION OF THE WORK PROGRAMME OF THE CONFORMITY ASSESSMENT TASK FORCE AND WORKING ARRANGEMENTS NEXT STEPS A.O.B File: CATF#1-Minutes_v1.0 Page vi of 14

7 1. INTRODUCTION The Conformity Assessment Task Force (CATF) held its first meeting at EUROCONTROL Headquarters on 30 March The meeting started at 10:00 AM and finished at 05:00 PM. This document is the minutes of this first meeting of the Conformity Assessment Task Force. 2. MEETING PARTICIPANTS The list of participants to the meeting is provided in Annex MEETING PROPOSED AGENDA The proposed agenda for the meeting is attached in Annex WELCOME AND INTRODUCTION On behalf of EUROCONTROL, Jean-Luc GARNIER (Head of the EUROCONTROL Regulatory Unit) and Martine BLAIZE (Deputy-Head of EUROCONTROL Safety Regulation Unit) welcomed the participants and provided the participants with a few words of introduction regarding the background of the Task Force. 5. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA The proposed agenda was adopted without modifications. 6. THE NEW AND GLOBAL APPROACHES On behalf of the European Commission (DG ENTERPRISE), Mr Putzeys presented the principles of the New Approach to product regulation and of the Global Approach to Conformity Assessment (CA), instruments laid down by the EC in order to remove the barriers to the free circulation of goods. Mr Putzeys recalled that these new approaches have been developed with specific products in mind (e.g. medical devices), but are now widely used in many areas (e.g. railways), and should also be used as a regulatory model for the ATM regulatory framework. The New and Global Approaches share the common thread that they limit public intervention to what is essential and File: CATF#1-Minutes_v1.0 Page 1 of 14

8 leave business and industry the greatest possible choice on how to meet their public obligations. This is achieved by a regulatory process based on the identification of Essential Requirements (ERs) that lay down the necessary elements for protecting the public interest in a given area, supported by relevant normative documents specified under EC mandate (Harmonized Standards) and also by a Conformity Assessment approach. He recalled that Harmonized Standards are considered as means of compliance in that they provide a presumption of conformity with Essential Requirements, if they have been published in the Official Journal, but their application remains, as a general principle, voluntary. Regarding Conformity Assessment, Mr Putzeys recalled that the approach is based on a set of eight basic modules and their variants (see list attached in Annex 3), which comprise a limited number of different procedures applicable to the widest range of products. These modules relate to the design phase of the product, or to the production phase of the products, or to both phases. Conformity Assessment according to the modules is either based on the intervention of a first party (manufacturer) or a third party (called a Notified Body). When required, Notified Bodies carry out the tasks pertaining to the conformity assessment procedures. Member States are responsible for their notification provided compliance with a set of requirements and general principles laid down in Decision 93/465/EC (i.e. technical competence and capabilities, independence, impartiality and integrity). The competence of Notified Bodies themselves is subject to surveillance and verification at regular intervals, according to practices established by the accreditation organisations. Mr Putzeys stressed that, under certain conditions, Notified Bodies activities could be performed by 2 nd parties. In some instances there may be an in house certification scheme which includes a function equivalent to that of NB. Mr Putzeys recalled the main principles behind each conformity assessment module type, detailling the relationship between them. He stressed that in his view, mainly module A and module H will become important in the future. Module H relies on ISO Other modules relative to design only, or production only, could in the future rely on specific parts of ISO relative to each phase. He emphasised that, in certain cases, quality assurance measures may not be enough to ensure compliance with requirements and that, in such cases, additional rules may be required. He also emphasised that, in any case, conformity assessment procedures can only be used to increase the level of confidence that products comply with requirements but cannot fully guaranty compliance to requirements. Because of this, it is understood that manufacturers will remain liable for compliance of products. He stated that one difficulty which may arise is to reconcile the implementation of various directives applicable to the same product. File: CATF#1-Minutes_v1.0 Page 2 of 14

9 7. APPLICATION OF THE NEW AND GLOBAL APPROACHES WITHIN THE SINGLE EUROPEAN SKY On behalf of the European Commission (DG TREN), Mr Morere presented the application of the New and Global Approaches regarding the interoperability of the European ATM network. In particular, he described that no detailed technical requirements shall be part of the Essential Requirements, and that, for the interoperability regulation, ERs shall be complemented by Implementation Rules (IRs). IRs will be developed by EUROCONTROL in conformity with the mandates issued by the Commission, and will have to be adopted by the Commission under the commitology procedure and published in the Official Journal. Specific Community Specifications (CSs), which may be developed by European standardisation bodies like CEN/CENELEC/ETSI in cooperation with EUROCAE, or by EUROCONTROL (regarding operational coordination), will be used as Means Of Compliance. Regarding conformity assessment and related CE markings, he stressed that IRs shall identify specific CA activities to be undertaken on constituent, systems and associated procedures, based on the New and Global Approaches modules (or combination of modules). For this purpose, it might be necessary, for specific purposes like ATM/CNS, to amend modules or develop new modules. This may also be the case regarding specific CA procedures for periodic testing or verification, re-assessment after a modification and continuous verification. IRs shall also identify the specific tasks of Notified Bodies regarding conformity assessment or suitability for use of constituents and regarding verification of systems. Please refer to ANNEX 3 for the details of Mr Morere s presentation. 8. ATM SAFETY REGULATORY FRAMEWORK Mrs Blaize, from EUROCONTROL SRU, presented to the audience the current ATM safety regulatory framework. The main thread of the presentation is on the fact that the SES and the New/Global approaches have the potential to modify the way ATM safety regulation (including safety oversight) is conducted today, and that therefore there is a need to reconcile the ATM Safety Regulatory Framework with the application of the New & Global Approaches to the SES (especially regarding ESARR 4 and ESARR 6). Mrs Blaize stressed that current ATM safety regulatory practices are performed on a total approach basis (i.e. taking into account technical, human, operational and management aspects as well as, when applicable, the airborne elements of ATM), both for rule-making and safety oversight aspects, during the complete life-cycle of the systems. She also emphasised the fact that, in the current approach, there is a limited File: CATF#1-Minutes_v1.0 Page 3 of 14

10 reliance on self declarations of conformity and, in general, no presumption of conformity regarding the use of standards as means of compliance. Please refer to ANNEX 4 for the details of Mrs Blaize s presentation. 9. BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE FOR THE CONFORMITY ASSESSMENT TASK FORCE Mr Garnier, from EUROCONTROL RU, presented the background and rationale that led the RU and SRU to propose the creation of the conformity assessment Task Force. In particular, he emphasised that despite the preliminary work of EUROCONTROL regarding a certification process for ATM (including the aspects of qualification of testing tools), and while taking into account the EUROCAE ED78A work on end-to-end certification of data-link systems, there is a clear need for an overall regulatory approach taking into account safety, but also other aspects like performance and interoperability in a manner consistent with the SES regulatory framework. Please refer to ANNEX 5 for the details of Mr Garnier s presentation. 10. VIEWS AND QUESTIONS OF DFS ON THE EC-DECLARATIONS OF CONFORMITY AND VERIFICATIONS On behalf of DFS, Mrs Gartemann presented the views and questions of DFS regarding the EC-declarations of conformity and verifications. During this presentation, Mrs Gartemann raised a number of questions and issues, the most important of which are outlined below: What are the definitions of constituents and systems in the EATMN environment? When should declaration of conformity versus suitability of use be selected in the EATMN environment? What are the criteria for selecting the right conformity assessment process? What is the applicability of the module-based conformity assessment process to the verification of EATMN systems? How should changes/evolutions of constituents/systems be handled from a conformity assessment point of view? What is considered a change? Mrs Gartemann concluded that there is a need for further work for a conformity assessment Task Force for the EATMN, and that this requires a clear definition of terms of reference and of a work programme that reflect the open issues and questions. File: CATF#1-Minutes_v1.0 Page 4 of 14

11 Please refer to ANNEX 6 for the details of Mrs Gartemann s presentation. 11. APPROVAL EXPERIENCES FROM STNA On behalf of STNA, Mr Robert presented the experiences of STNA regarding approval of systems. The presentation focuses on STNA activities regarding verification and validation of systems during the systems life-cycle and of the technical conformity assessment processes (testing is performed as factory testing as well as site testing). Mr Robert indicated that several types of requirements are used regarding testing, including: New functions Performances Non regression Robustness Endurance. Mr Robert concluded by stressing that an appropriate trade off must be found between the level of tests coverage and cost-delays impacts. Please refer to ANNEX 7 for the details of Mr Robert s presentation. 12. CONFORMITY ASSESSMENT MECHANISMS CURRENTLY IN USE IN ATM REGULATORY METHODS AND PRACTICES USED IN UK CAA (SRG) On behalf of UK CAA, Mr Daly presented the current ATM safety regulatory methods and practices used in the UK, including the conformity assessment approach. Mr Daly stressed that the ATM safety regulation process in the UK is a total system approach (people, procedures, systems, organisation). He explained that in order to have a real regulatory system, there is a need to move forward from a subjective, rule-based approach to an objective, safety risk-based approach, with a formal interface between the regulator and the ANSP. He also detailed the regulatory process used in the UK. Please refer to ANNEX 8 for the details of Mr Daly s presentation. 13. ANS CR SAFETY & QUALITY MANAGEMENT AND CERTIFICATION On behalf of ANS Czech Republic, Mr Halen presented the current safety, quality management and certification methods and practices used in the File: CATF#1-Minutes_v1.0 Page 5 of 14

12 Czech Republic regarding ANS. Mr Halen recalled the history of the introduction of an Integrated Safety and Quality Management System (ISQMS) regarding ATM in the Czech Republic, based on the obtention of the ISO certification. He explained how safety and quality management rely on each other, and how the current system is progressively upgraded to cover additional aspects of safety like occupational health and safety management, environmental management or security management. He then detailed the ISQMS processes used in the Czech Republic, insisting on audits and verification processes, and stressing that, in his view, the new EU directives would not change the internal audit process, but may reinforce the external audit process. He emphasised that conformity assessment must rely on: A good targeting of objectives Consistency of practices Transparency of arrangements, and Realistic implementation. He concluded his presentation by outlining the benefits of a safety/quality integrated approach and raising a number of questions, including the following most important ones: Who are the notified bodies for EATMN? What will be the place of EUROCONTROL versus EU standards regarding the new regulations? What are the legal aspects of CE marking? Can the ATM community rely on self-certification of ATM products/processes by manufacturers? How to reconcile ESARRs with the new EU regulation? Please refer to ANNEX 9 for the details of Mr Halen s presentation. 14. CERTIFICATION OF AIRCRAFT AND RELATED PRODUCTS AND PARTS On behalf of the JAAs, Mr Morier presented the current regulatory methods and practices used in the JAAs (and/or EASA) regarding certification of aircraft and related products and parts, with the aim of setting-up the scene for the work of the CA Task Force. Please refer to ANNEX 10 for the details of Mr Morier s presentation. File: CATF#1-Minutes_v1.0 Page 6 of 14

13 15. SAFETY ASPECTS OF CONFORMITY ASSESSMENT Mr Morton, from EUROCONTROL SRU, presented the safety aspects of conformity assessment. Regarding safety, Mr Morton emphasised that Conformity Assessment is understood as the process by which safety requirements for ATM systems are verified and validated. Such verification and validation is to be performed on a total basis i.e. ground and air segments, including people, procedures and systems, throughout the life-cycle of the system. In an attempt to set the scene regarding future work for safety aspects of CA, Mr Morton identified the following elements as key items to be taken into account: Roles of National Supervisory Authorities, ANSPs, Notified Bodies, Manufacturers ; Approval of ATM Notified Bodies ; Conformity assessment of SSA for systems ; Allocation of Safety Requirements to applicable conformity element ; Testing information required ; Ongoing Safety Oversight ; Inclusion of ATM Air and Ground elements ; Degree of oversight required. Please refer to ANNEX 11 for the details of Mr Morier s presentation. 16. MAIN CONCLUSIONS OF THE AIR STUDY REGARDING CONFORMITY ASSESSMENT Mr Moyaux, from SOFREAVIA, presented the main conclusions of the AIR study regarding ATM interoperability conformity assessment aspects. After having recalled the objectives of the AIR study, performed by SOFREAVIA for the European Commission, Mr Moyaux outlined the key issues found by the study regarding conformity assessment of ATM systems and identified possible solutions and/or way forward. In summary, the main findings of the study regarding CA of EATMN were as follows: additional mechanisms, verification processes and/or new modules may be necessary to fully address the complexity of ATM/CNS systems (in particular the fact that ATM/CNS systems are subject to continuous evolutions or changes), File: CATF#1-Minutes_v1.0 Page 7 of 14

14 a set of criteria needs to be defined for selecting the relevant CA modules to be applied (preferably as a small generic set of system/constituent categories), the level of intervention of notified bodies needs to be defined, Reconciliation of other elements of safety regulation (ESARRs in particular) with the future conformity assessment regime must be defined. Please refer to ANNEX 12 for the details of Mr Moyaux s presentation. 17. QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS Mrs Blaize highlighted that the various presentations made raised a number of essential issues to be addressed by the CA Task Force; among them:- A need to clarify the roles and responsibilities in CA processes applied to ATM A potential need to distinguish between different types of constituents: equipment, integrated and complex systems, operational procedures etc.. A specific issue with regard to the approach to be adopted to address the operational aspects of CA and the life cycle of the overall ATM system The difficulty to reconcile in one implementation various regulatory requirements. Several sessions of questions/answers/comments (Q/A/C) were organised during the day. This section is a summary of the main points discussed during all these sessions. Q (from Mr Hermens): What will be the level of liability of CAAs, ANSPs and manufacturers in the new regulatory framework, especially given the role of Notified Bodies? o A (by Mr Putzeys): NB will not take liability on products. This liability will essentially remain with manufacturers. NBs are essentially liable for performing their tasks in a professional manner. Q: A number of modules identify ISO 9001/9002/9003 as means for CA. What is the impact of the new ISO standard which make these standards more or less obsolete? File: CATF#1-Minutes_v1.0 Page 8 of 14

15 o A (by Mr Putzeys): ISO focuses on continuous improvements of QA processes. It does however include provisions similar to ISO9001/9002/9003 provisions. Therefore, the modules can be mapped on relevant sections of the new standard. C (from Mr Coulardot):The N&G Approach is oriented towards free circulation of products, whereas the SES regulation is oriented towards enhanced safety and more efficiency in European ATM. France believes that new CA procedures are needed to meet the SES regulatory framework (if necessary using the N&G approach) and welcomes the CATF, expecting that the result of its work will used by the EC. C (from Mr Garnier): Following Mr Coulardot s comments, Mr Garnier clarified that the objectives of the N&GA and the SES were not incompatible. C (from Mrs Blaize): If dealing with safety, CA aspects shall not only be product oriented. Verification processes or CA aspects shall also be taken into account at service level. o A (by Mr Putzeys): Mr Putzeys noted that EC responsibilty stops when product are put into service. National Authorities take over responsibility after putting into service. C (from Mr Putzeys): Mr Putzeys warned the Task Force about the use of modules. He explained that specific rules are defined in Directive 465 regarding the allowed combinations of modules, and should be referred to. He also clarified that Quality Management System (as per ISO ) may not be sufficient in themselves for EATMN Interoperability verification, but that they may be complemented by additional CA rules associated to QA. Q (from Mrs Blaize): Is the EASA regulation imposing new constraints on aircraft certification? Is the N&G approach mandatory as well for EASA? o A (from Mr Morier): The aircraft certification schemes had to be adapted to the N&GA to ensure consistency of the approaches, but no fundamental changes were required. Quality Management is part of DOA (Design Organisation Approval), but trust is limited (e.g. minor changes approval). The rule making structure is the same (ER/IR/CS) and the CA approach is not too different from the G&N approach. o C (from Mr Putzeys): Mr Putzeys stated that in his opinion, the EASA approach to CA was along the lines of Module H+. Q (from several parties): Several questions regarding Notified Bodies File: CATF#1-Minutes_v1.0 Page 9 of 14

16 o A (from Mr Morere): Introduction of new NBs for ATM will come with the new regulation coming into force. o A (from Mr Putzeys): In general, the intention of the EC is to go away from National Authorities being NBs, but this is not excluded (due to the difficulties that have some National Authorities in maintaining an appropriate level of expertise). Specific criteria have to be defined and agreed regarding NBs and shall be complied with. NBs shall be nominated based on competence, not national policy reasons. In general, the EC is contemplating that there are too many NBs, creating an environment with too much competition between them. This can be detrimental to safety, and may require a reinforcement of the control of NB by National Authorities. There is no obligation for National Authorities to nominate 1 or more NBs. However, other problems may result when the scope of actions of NBs are two large or when NB are not always technically competent. o A (from Mr Macey): It is however necessary to ensure that there is a business case for ATM-related NBs. 18. DISCUSSION OF THE TERMS OF REFERENCE OF THE CONFORMITY ASSESSMENT TASK FORCE The Task Force proposed ToRs, as agreed by the RC, SRC and EC, were presented by Mr Garnier to the Task Force for comments (refer to Annex 13). The following comments were made and decisions taken: Add in section 3 a paragraph regarding the need to address implications of conformity assessment processes; In section 3.3, a question was raised regarding the reference to the need to possibly define new modules. The EC confirmed that this was acceptable if necessary and justified. No change was required. In section 5, 2 nd paragraph, replace reference to objectives 3 and 4 with reference to objectives 3 to 6. In section 3, a question was raised regarding the position of ESARRs in the EC regulatory framework and more specifically on the need to still apply ESARR 4 and related safety regulatory oversight/approval process by NSA in the context of the SES and G&N approaches. It was clarified by the EC that safety aspects are considered by the EC as part of the Interoperability Regulation. SRU also stated that from its current assessment, CA could bring in a credit of certification but would not replace the safety regulatory oversight of changes to ATM. It was proposed to change section 3.5 to identify this issue. After the meeting, the following text has been proposed for section 3.5: To propose File: CATF#1-Minutes_v1.0 Page 10 of 14

17 principles for the harmonised implementation of standardisation procedures and ATM conformity assessment procedures, in a manner which clarifies their articulation with the ATM safety regulatory oversight & approval of changes in ATM. A question was raised regarding the applicability of Interoperability Regulation to procedures and the need to still have target levels of safety at national level. It was confirmed by the EC that procedures are indeed part of the Interoperability Regulation, and as such may be part of Implementing Rules requirements or not, according to specific cases. SRU stated that EC setting up common requirements, it was expected that an European TLS be set up; whatever, Annex 11 requirement 2.26 still applies in an EC SES context. No changes were required. Regarding sections 3.5 and 3.6, the EC clarified that the aim of the interoperability regulation is not harmonisation, but that it may result in harmonisation of systems and procedures. No changes were required. The Task Force ToRs will be updated according to the changes agreed above. 19. DISCUSSION OF THE WORK PROGRAMME OF THE CONFORMITY ASSESSMENT TASK FORCE AND WORKING ARRANGEMENTS A flimsy was presented by Mr Doré, describing a proposed approach for the short-term work programme of the CATF (refer to Annex 14). To set-up the scene, Mr Garnier explained that EUROCONTROL will likely be mandated 1 in the very short-term by the EC for proposing Implementing Rules regarding interoperability requirements for the: Flight Messages Transfer Protocol (relying on FDE-ICD standard); ATC Coordination and Transfer (relying on the OLDI standard); and Initial Flight Plans Exchanges. In this context, EUROCONTROL will be in charge of drafting IRs, including CA aspects, but also to consult with stakeholders regarding these IRs. Such consultation with involve an informal as well as a formal process. It is the aim of the RU/SRU that the Task Force can be used, in particular, as a vehicle for informal consultation with interested Stakeholders regarding CA aspects. It was proposed to conduct the Task Force work along two lines of actions: a Top-Down approach, and in parallel a Bottom-Up approach. 1 The mandates were indeed received a few days after the CATF meeting. File: CATF#1-Minutes_v1.0 Page 11 of 14

18 The Top-Down approach would aim at identifying and agreeing common definitions and principles regarding high level guidance for implementation of SES EATMN Conformity Assessment (including CA aspects of IRs). This could include: Categories of IRs and of Interoperability Requirements; Identified dependencies between IRs; Categories of CA procedures applicable to constituents, systems and procedures. Scope of CA with respect to the lifecycle of ATM objects subject to regulatory provisions; Level of integration between safety regulatory oversight and CA activities; Etc. The Bottom-Up approach would aim at defining concrete approaches regarding CA aspects of the IRs to be developed for FMTP and Co-ordination & Transfer. This would include activities like: Identifying current practices relating to CA aspects of corresponding legacy EUROCONTROL standards; Identifying how the module-based approach might be used to support conformity assessment; Providing recommendations for CA requirements to be included into corresponding IRs; Identifying resources necessary to carry-out conformity assessment activities; Providing cost-related information about proposed solutions for conformity assessment. Deliverables regarding both approaches were proposed to be achieved as follows: Interim results: end of May 04 Draft consolidated results: mid-sept 04. This approach was endorsed by the Task Force, and it was proposed to establish three small Sub-Groups, one carrying on the Top-Down Approach, and two for the Bottom-Up Approach (one per specific case identified). File: CATF#1-Minutes_v1.0 Page 12 of 14

19 It was agreed that the Task Force members shall provide, by April 2 nd, their feedback on their wish to participate or not to any of these SGs. 20. NEXT STEPS The next meeting of the Task Force was planned to take place on 15 June 2004 at EUROCONTROL HQ. In the meantime, EUROCONTROL will establish the three SGs described above, and organise the work of such SGs, with the aim of presenting first SGs results at the CATF meeting in mid-june 04. ACTIONs: CAFT1-1:- All CATF members were requested to provide nomination for the three Sub-Groups by 2/4/04 latest. 21. A.O.B No Any Other Business was discussed. File: CATF#1-Minutes_v1.0 Page 13 of 14

20 ANNEX 1: List of meeting participants ANNEX 2: Proposed meeting agenda ANNEX 3: Presentation of Mr Morere (DG TREN) ANNEX 4: Presentation of Mrs Blaize (SRU) ANNEX 5: Presentation of Mr Garnier (RU) ANNEX 6: Presentation of Mrs Gartemann (DFS) ANNEX 7: Presentation of Mr Robert (STNA) ANNEX 8: Presentation of Mr Daly (UK CAA) ANNEX 9: Presentation of Mr Halen (ANS Czech Republic) ANNEX 10: Presentation of Mr Morier (JAA) ANNEX 11: Presentation of Mr Morton (SRU) ANNEX 12: Presentation of Mr Moyaux (SOFREAVIA) ANNEX 13: TORs of the Conformity Assessment Task Force ANNEX 14: Proposed approach for the short-term work programme of the CATF File: CATF#1-Minutes_v1.0 Page 14 of 14