(1)

Article 181(1), point (b), of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 requires institutions, in quantifying the risk parameters to be associated with rating grades or pools, to use own-LGD estimates that are appropriate for an economic downturn if those estimates are more conservative than the long-run average. Similarly, Article 182(1), point (b), of that Regulation requires institutions to use own-conversion factor (‘CF’) estimates that are appropriate for an economic downturn if those estimates are more conservative than the long-run average.

(2)

Given the specificities of different portfolios, institutions should be required to identify economic downturns separately for each type of exposures, as defined in Article 142(1), point (2), of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013.

(3)

The nature of an economic downturn for a given type of exposures should be specified by reference to the set of economic indicators that are considered to be either explanatory variables for, or indicators of, the economic cycle specific to that type of exposures. The set of economic indicators should include both macro-economic and credit-related indicators. This is to ensure that, for a comparable type of exposures, institutions will, generally speaking, identify the same economic downturn.

(4)

Even though the level of realised LGDs and realised CFs may be substantially above the long-run average as a result of an economic downturn, the conditions characterising an economic downturn should not be considered as the equivalent of the conditions used for stress testing. The conditions used for stress testing may be more severe and potentially use more extreme scenarios that are not necessarily based on historical observations. Regulation (EU) No 575/2013, and the delegated acts that supplement it, adequately provide for the carrying out of stress testing in cases where this is required, and the provisions relating to own-LGD and own-CF estimates do not include any such requirement for stress testing. The specification of an economic downturn for the purposes of own-LGD and own-CF estimates should be based instead on historically observed economic conditions.

(5)

The severity of an economic downturn should be specified by reference to the most severe 12-month values observed over an appropriate historical time-span for the set of economic indicators characterising the nature of a downturn for the particular type of exposures under consideration. For each economic indicator in the set, the most severe 12-month value should be used because it strikes a balance between stability and identification of the most severe conditions observed in an appropriate time-span. This approach was chosen for simplicity of the 12-month view and also because a longer average could potentially dilute adverse conditions observed on an economic indicator. More frequent values, for example quarterly values, could be subject to seasonal influences. On the other hand, less frequent values, for example values representing 36-month averages, could hide severe conditions.

(6)

Even for economic indicators reported annually, the 12 months to which indicators relate are not necessarily the same in all cases. Some indicators relate to calendar years, others to financial years, others to tax years and so on. For the purpose of identifying economic downturns, it should therefore be possible, in the case of both economic indicators reported annually and indicators reported on a more frequent basis, to use 12-month periods that start at any point in time within the year.

(7)

Given that a type of exposures may comprise exposures related to different businesses, sectors or geographical areas, an economic downturn for a type of exposures may comprise either one or several distinct ‘downturn periods’. A downturn period should be recognised as a period of specified time in which a relevant economic indicator shows its most severe 12-month value. If the peaks or troughs related to the most severe 12-month value observed for two or more economic indicators are reached simultaneously or shortly after each other, those economic indicators should all be attributed to the same ‘downturn period’. The reason for allowing for the possibility of an economic downturn comprising more than one distinct downturn period is to ensure that each relevant economic indicator is taken into account in specifying non-overlapping downturn periods which are to be analysed in the context of a downturn LGD estimation and a downturn CF estimation.

(8)

In order to avoid excessive complexity, it is appropriate to establish a list of economic indicators to be taken into account in all cases. However, given the specificities of particular portfolios, institutions should also be required to take into account additional economic indicators that are explanatory variables for, or indicators of, the economic cycle specific to the particular type of exposures.

(9)

Given the wide geographical and sectoral diversity of portfolios, it is not practicable to prescribe the precise data sources that must be used for each listed indicator in every jurisdiction of the world and every sector. Moreover, institutions are already required under Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 to use reliable data and to have robust systems in place for validating the estimation of all risk parameters. As a result, institutions will in any event be required to demonstrate the accuracy and reliability of the data sources used by them for obtaining indicator values. It is therefore not necessary to lay down specific rules in this Regulation about the precise data sources to be used.

(10)

Institutions should use appropriate reliable data sources, but they should not be required to acquire data for available economic indicators if the costs of doing so are disproportionate, having regard to the type of indicator as well as to the materiality of the type of exposures under consideration relative to the other types of exposures in the portfolio.

(11)

The economic indicators are to be considered in levels or in changes of levels as appropriate, taking into account the way in which the economic indicator is commonly reported and the extent to which it is able to reveal cyclicality.

(12)

An economic indicator should be included in the set of relevant economic indicators once for each jurisdiction, or smaller geographical area where appropriate, that represents a material share of the type of exposures under consideration. This is to ensure that the set of indicators fairly reflects the geographical mix of the exposures in that type of exposures. A similar rule should apply for each industry sector representing a material share of the type of exposures. Only where different jurisdictions or different industry sectors exhibit strong co-movements in realised values of economic indicators institutions should be allowed to group those jurisdictions or sectors for the purposes of identifying an economic downturn.

(13)

The historical time-span over which values for a given economic indicator are to be examined should be specified. A default time-span of 20 years should be set for each economic indicator. This is to ensure that the historical observation period covers at least two economic cycles. However, where those 20 years do not contain sufficiently severe values, institutions should be required to look further back into the data history. Values should be considered ‘not sufficiently severe’ if the variability of the economic indicator over that 20-year observation period is not representative of the likely range of variability of that indicator in the future.

(14)

For reasons of simplicity and comparability, a downturn period should have a duration of at least 12 months. In order to ensure greater accuracy in the results, that period of time should be treated as a minimum. Institutions should be required to apply a longer duration where the most severe value(s) for the economic indicator(s) associated with a downturn period imply a longer downturn. The duration of a downturn period should reflect adverse conditions in cyclical behaviours specific to the type of exposures under consideration, rather than structural changes in the economy leading to long-term effects on the values of economic indicators.

(15)

The requirements for estimating LGDs and CFs in Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 require institutions to document the design and operational details of their rating systems, including the design of their processes for identifying economic downturns, and to retain evidence to show compliance with the estimation requirements in that Regulation. Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 further requires institutions to review their LGD and CF estimates and any input data required to make these estimates when new information comes to light and, in any event, at least annually.

(16)

The provisions in this Regulation are closely linked since they deal with the nature, severity and duration of an economic downturn affecting two different risk parameters that are both used for the purposes of applying the Internal Ratings Based (IRB) Approach, namely own-LGD estimates and own-CF estimates. To ensure that the provisions needed for identifying economic downturns for LGD purposes and the provisions needed for identifying economic downturns for CF purposes are consistent and that they enter into force at the same time, and to ensure ready access to those provisions, it is desirable to include the regulatory technical standards required by Article 181(3) and the regulatory technical standards required by Article 182(4) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 in a single Regulation.

(17)

Given the interplay with other Union acts relevant for own-LGD and own-CF estimations, the date of application of this Regulation should be deferred until 1 January 2021. In particular, institutions will need to comply with the revised materiality threshold set by competent authorities in accordance with Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/171 (2).

(18)

This Regulation is based on the draft regulatory technical standards submitted by the European Banking Authority to the Commission.

(19)

The European Banking Authority has conducted open public consultations on the draft regulatory technical standards on which this Regulation is based, analysed the potential related costs and benefits, in accordance with Article 10 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3), and requested the opinion of the Banking Stakeholder Group established in accordance with Article 37 of that Regulation,

(a)

in a case falling within Article 1(4), point (b), the single downturn period shall be such period that is long enough to cover all the peaks or troughs related to the most severe 12-month values observed for the different economic indicators associated with that single downturn period;

(b)

in all cases, whether or not falling within Article 1(4), point (b), where the various 12-month values observed for the economic indicator or indicators in question over the applicable time-span do not significantly deviate from their most severe 12-month value over a specific, continuous period of time within the applicable time-span, the downturn period shall be long enough to reflect the prolonged severity observed for the economic indicator or indicators in question;

(c)

in all cases, whether or not falling within Article 1(4), point (b), where the economic indicator or indicators show adjacent peaks or troughs to those peaks or troughs related to the most severe 12-month values observed for the economic indicator or indicators in question over the applicable time-span and those adjacent peaks and troughs do not significantly deviate from the most severe 12-month value observed for that indicator or those indicators over that time-span and those adjacent peaks and troughs are related to the same overall economic condition, the downturn period shall be long enough to reflect the whole prolonged period over which those adjacent peaks or troughs are observed;

(d)

in a case falling within Article 1(4), point (a), where neither point (b), nor point (c) of this Article applies, the downturn period shall be the 12-month period to which the most severe 12-month value relates.

(1)

Institutions should identify the risk drivers of a derivative transaction by determining the risk factors on which the cash flows of that transaction depend. To ensure that institutions follow a harmonised approach for this identification, they should at least consider the risk factors listed in Section 3, Chapter 1a of Title IV of Part Three of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013.

(2)

The method for identifying derivative transactions with only one material risk driver, for the purpose of mapping those derivative transactions to the relevant risk category, should be simple for all cases where the primary and only material risk driver of the derivative transaction is immediately discernible from the nature and cash flows of that transaction.

(3)

Cross-currency interest rate swaps are used by institutions to hedge the foreign exchange risk arising from funding or investment in foreign currencies. Although such transactions primarily depend on foreign exchange risk drivers, they can depend also on other risk drivers, such as interest rate risk drivers. Nevertheless, as market experience shows that the effect of these other risk drivers is very often immaterial for these particular transaction types, if a transaction falls under this type, this should suffice for identifying such transactions as derivative transactions with only one material risk driver.

(4)

Irrespective of the nature and cash flows of a derivative transaction, the interest rates used to discount the cash flows of the transaction (‘the discount rate’) should not be considered as a material risk driver. Requiring institutions to take into account the discount rate in the method for identifying derivative transactions with only one material risk driver would be disproportionate and burdensome, as empirical experience shows that that risk driver has usually a more limited effect on the value of derivative transactions than the other risk drivers from which their cash flows are derived.

(5)

For derivative transactions that have more than one risk driver, institutions should take into account the sensitivities and the volatility of the underlying to identify those risk drivers that are material in each risk category and the most material of those risk drivers in each risk category.

(6)

For derivative transactions that have more than one risk driver and where those risk drivers refer to different risk categories, it may not be possible to conclude which of those risk drivers are material, even after taking into account sensitivities and the volatility of the underlying of the transaction. In such cases, institutions should, as a simple, conservative fallback approach, consider all the risk drivers of the transaction material and, consequently, allocate the derivative transaction to the risk categories corresponding to these risk drivers on the basis of the most material risk drivers within each risk category.

(7)

The method for identifying derivative transactions with only one material risk driver should be performed at inception only, where such derivative transactions have been identified at inception as having only one risk driver, because that single risk driver is a basic characteristic of those transactions and is therefore not expected to change. Where, at inception, derivative transactions have been identified as having more than one risk driver, the process for identifying the material and most material of those risk drivers should be undertaken on a quarterly basis so that any changes in those transactions can be appropriately reflected in the mapping of those derivative transaction to the relevant risk categories.

(8)

Article 279a(3), point (a), of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 requires that the formula to be used for the calculation of the supervisory delta of call and put options, when mapped to the interest rate risk category, that is compatible with market conditions in which interest rates may be negative, is to be specified in accordance with international regulatory developments. On 22 March 2018, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) (2) published the ‘Frequently asked questions on the Basel III standardised approach for measuring counterparty credit risk exposures’, explaining that the supervisory delta for interest rate options in the case of a negative interest rate environment should be determined in accordance with a specific formula, in which a lambda (λ) shift is applied to the spot or forward interest rate and to the strike of the option used in that formula to ensure that that spot or forward interest rate and strike of the option are positive.

(9)

In order to render the spot or forward interest rate and the strike of the option positive, the λ shift should be large enough to enable institutions to calculate the supervisory delta of a transaction in accordance with the formula laid down in Article 279a(1) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013, but at the same time small enough not to introduce unnecessary bias in the outcome of the supervisory delta calculation.

(10)

The supervisory volatility, being one of the parameters for the calculation of the supervisory delta, should be determined in light of the specific formula for the calculation of the supervisory delta for put and call options in the interest rate risk category. In that respect, the value of the supervisory volatility for put and call options in the interest rate risk category as determined in the international standards adopted by the BCBS is deemed suitable for its use under Union law.

(11)

To enable institutions to determine whether a transaction is a long or short position in the primary risk driver, in a material risk driver or in the most material risk driver of a given risk category, it should be laid down which information concerning a transaction institutions should use for making such a determination. To avoid unnecessary burdens for institutions, they should be allowed to use the same information as the information they use for the identification of material risk drivers.

(12)

This Regulation is based on the draft regulatory technical standards submitted by the European Banking Authority to the Commission.

(13)

The European Banking Authority has conducted open public consultations on the draft regulatory technical standards on which this Regulation is based, analysed the potential related costs and benefits and requested the advice of the Banking Stakeholder Group established in accordance with Article 37 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (3),

(1)

Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 provides for the authorisation of additives for use in animal nutrition and for the grounds and procedures for granting, denying or suspending such authorisation. Article 10 of that Regulation provides for the re-evaluation of additives authorised pursuant to Council Directive 70/524/EEC (2).

(2)

Lasalocid A sodium (Avatec 15 % cc) and lasalocid A sodium (Avatec 150 G) were authorised by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1455/2004 (3) for 10 years as feed additives belonging to the category of coccidiostats for use for chickens for fattening and chickens reared for laying. Those feed additives were subsequently entered in the Register of feed additives as existing products, in accordance with Article 10(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.

(3)

In accordance with Article 10(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 in conjunction with Article 7 thereof, an application was submitted for the authorisation of lasalocid A sodium (Avatec 150 G) as a feed additive for chickens for fattening and chickens reared for laying, requesting the additive to be classified in the additive category ‘coccidiostats and histomonostats’. That application was accompanied by the particulars and documents required under Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.

(4)

The European Food Safety Authority (‘the Authority’) stated in its opinions of 16 May 2017 (4) and 1 July 2020 (5) that the assessment of the particulars and documents submitted by the applicant makes it impossible to conclude on the safety and the efficacy of the feed additive lasalocid A sodium (Avatec 150 G) for chickens for fattening and chickens reared for laying. The Authority indicated that no safe level of the active substance lasalocid A sodium, when added to feed, could be identified for the target species. It also concluded that, due to the insufficient number of studies with positive results, the coccidiostatic efficacy of the feed additive was insufficiently demonstrated at the lowest proposed dose level of 75 mg lasalocid A sodium per kg of complete feed. In addition, the Authority verified the report on the method of analysis of the feed additive in feed submitted by the Reference Laboratory set up by Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.

(5)

Consequently, it has not been established that the feed additive does not have an adverse effect on animal health and that it has a coccidiostatic effect on the target species, when used under the proposed conditions. This conclusion can be extended to the existing authorisation of the feed additive lasalocid A sodium (Avatec 15 % cc), which contains the same concentration of the active substance lasalocid A sodium.

(6)

The existing authorisation of the feed additives lasalocid A sodium (Avatec 15 % cc) and lasalocid A sodium (Avatec 150 G) for chickens for fattening and chickens reared for laying therefore no longer meets the conditions set out by Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.

(7)

It is possible that supplementary data concerning the safety of use and the efficacy of lasalocid A sodium (Avatec 150 G) for the target species bring new elements that would allow a re-consideration of the assessment carried out for that feed additive. In this respect, the applicant for the authorisation of lasalocid A sodium (Avatec 150 G) argues that additional studies may be performed in order to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of the feed additive for the target species. To this end, the applicant committed itself to produce supplementary data according to a time schedule, listing the studies to be carried out and planning that the outcome thereof will be available by 31 December 2021. Those studies would consist of tolerance and ‘floor pen’ efficacy studies for chickens for fattening and chickens reared for laying.

(8)

In accordance with Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, the authorisation of the feed additives lasalocid A sodium (Avatec 15 % cc) and lasalocid A sodium (Avatec 150 G) should be suspended, pending the submission and assessment of the supplementary data. The suspension measure should be reviewed after due assessment of those data by the Authority.

(9)

Since further use of the feed additives lasalocid A sodium (Avatec 15 % cc) and lasalocid A sodium (Avatec 150 G) might cause a risk to animal health, the feed additives and feed containing them should be withdrawn from the market as soon as possible. For practical reasons, however, a limited transitional period should be allowed for the withdrawal from the market of the products concerned in order to enable operators to comply properly with the withdrawal obligation.

(10)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed,

(1)

Article 1(2) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/39 (2) lays down the definition of ‘school year’ for the purposes of the aid scheme referred to under Article 23 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 (the ‘school scheme’). The measures put in place by the Member States to address the COVID-19 pandemic, which include the temporary closure of educational establishments, have disrupted the implementation of the school scheme in the 2020/2021 school year. Those measures have temporarily prevented the distribution of fruit, vegetables and milk in the educational establishments and the carrying out of accompanying educational measures and publicity, monitoring and evaluation activities. It is therefore appropriate to provide for a derogation from Article 1(2) of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/39 in order to extend the duration of the 2020/2021 school year, so that Member States may continue carrying out the activities envisaged for that school year until 30 September 2021.

(2)

Article 4(3), (4) and (5) and Article 5(3) of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/39 lay down the period that aid applications for the supply and distribution of products and for the accompanying educational measures may cover, and the time limit for the submission of aid applications and for the payment of the aid under the school scheme. In view of the extension of the duration of the 2020/2021 school year, a derogation from Article 4(3), (4) and (5) and Article 5(3) of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/39 should be provided for with regard to the aid applications for the school scheme activities taking place after 31 July 2021, so that they may cover periods of less than two weeks and to lay down the time limits for the submission of aid applications and for the payment of the aid.

(3)

Article 7(3) of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/39 sets out the rules for the reallocation of unrequested Union aid amongst the Member States participating in the school scheme that have notified their willingness to use more than their indicative allocation. The amount of indicative allocation that may be reallocated to another Member State is to be based on the level of use of the definitive allocation of Union aid by that Member State in the previous school year. The confinement rules put in place by the Member States to address the COVID-19 pandemic, which include the temporary closure of educational establishments, might lead to a lower use of Union aid in the 2020/2021 school year. It is therefore appropriate to provide for a derogation from Article 7(3) of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/39, in order not to take into account the level of use of Union aid in the 2020/2021 school year for the reallocation of unrequested Union aid amongst the Member States participating in the school scheme in the 2022/2023 school year.

(4)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for the Common Organisation of the Agricultural Markets,

(1)

Classical swine fever is an infectious viral disease affecting kept and wild porcine animals and can have a severe impact on the concerned animal population and the profitability of farming causing disturbance to movements of consignments of those animals and products thereof within the Union and exports to third countries. The spread of the disease can significantly affect the productivity of the farming sector due to both direct and indirect losses.

(2)

Commission Implementing Decision 2013/764/EU (2) lays down animal health control measures in relation to classical swine fever in the Member States and it has been amended several times to take account mainly of developments in the epidemiological situation in the Union as regards that disease. It applies until 21 April 2021.

(3)

Regulation (EU) 2016/429 establishes a new legislative framework for the prevention and control of diseases, which are transmissible to animals or humans. Classical swine fever is listed under Article 5(1)(a)(ii) of that Regulation, and is subject to the disease prevention and control rules laid down therein. In addition, Annex II to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1882 (3) lists classical swine fever as a Category A, D and E disease affecting Suidae and Tayassuidae, while Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687 (4) supplements the rules for the control of Category A, B and C diseases laid down in Regulation (EU) 2016/429, including disease control measures for classical swine fever. Those three acts apply from 21 April 2021.

(4)

It is necessary to align the current Union control measures for classical swine fever laid down in Implementing Decision 2013/764/EU with the new legislative framework for animal health established by Regulation (EU) 2016/429. It is also necessary to align Union rules as much as possible with international standards, such as those set out in Chapter 15.2 ‘Infection with classical swine fever virus’ of the Terrestrial Animal Health Code of the World Organization for Animal Health (5) (OIE Code).

(5)

The overall situation of classical swine fever in the Member States concerned by that disease, both on an epidemiological and risk management level, poses a persistent risk for its possible further spread in the Union. The general disease control measures laid down in Regulation (EU) 2016/429 and in Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687 do not cover all specific details and aspects in relation to the spread and the epidemiological situation of classical swine fever. It is therefore appropriate to lay down special disease control measures for a limited period of time, under conditions appropriate to the situation of classical swine fever in the Union, in order to ensure that the necessary measures are implemented in an uniform manner in the Union whenever there is a risk for the spread of that disease.

(6)

Regulation (EU) 2016/429 defines an outbreak as the officially confirmed occurrence of a listed disease or an emerging disease in one or more animals in an establishment or other place where animals or kept or located. The rules laid down in this Regulation should take account of whether or not the outbreak of classical swine fever occurred in wild or kept porcine animals.

(7)

This Regulation should provide for a regionalisation approach, which should apply in addition to the disease control measures laid down in Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687. This Regulation should list the restricted zones of the Member States concerned by classical swine fever in order to maintain the regionalisation approach established by Implementing Decision 2013/764/EU.

(8)

As regards risks for the spread of classical swine fever, movements of consignments of porcine animals and different porcine commodities pose different levels of risk. As a general rule, movements of consignments of kept porcine animals, germinal products and animal by-products of porcine origin from restricted zones pose a higher level of risk in terms of exposure and consequences, than movements of consignments of products of animal origin, including in particular fresh meat and meat products. Therefore, movements of consignments of kept porcine animals and various high-risk products of porcine origin from the restricted zones listed in Annex I to this Regulation should be prohibited in a manner proportionate to the risk involved, and taking into account the rules laid down in Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687 and in Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/2154 (6).

(9)

The rules laid down in Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/686 (7) supplement Regulation (EU) 2016/429 as regards the approval of germinal product establishments, the registers of germinal product establishments to be kept by the competent authorities, the record-keeping obligations of operators, the traceability and animal health requirements, and animal health certification and notification requirements for movements within the Union of consignments of germinal products of certain kept terrestrial animals in order to prevent the spread of transmissible animal diseases within the Union by those products. Therefore, the rules laid down in this Regulation should refer to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/689 (8), as regards the information required to be kept by the competent authorities of approved germinal product establishments for porcine animals.

(10)

Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council (9) lays down animal health rules for animal by-products in order to prevent and minimise risks to animal health arising from those by-products. In addition, Commission Regulation (EU) No 142/2011 (10) lays down certain animal health rules for animal by-products falling within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009, including rules regarding the certification requirements for movements of consignments of animal by-products in the Union. Those legal acts do not cover all specific details and aspects in relation to the risk of the spread of classical swine fever through animal by-products obtained from kept and wild porcine animals in the restricted zones listed in Annex I to this Regulation. It is therefore appropriate to lay down in this Regulation special disease control measures for animal by-products and movements of consignments of such by-products from restricted zones listed in Annex I to this Regulation, in order to ensure that the necessary measures are implemented in an uniform manner in the Union whenever there is a risk for the spread of that disease.

(11)

In order to avoid any unnecessary disturbances to trade, it is appropriate to lay down certain conditions and derogations from the prohibitions provided for by this Regulation. The derogations should also take into account the general rules for the prevention and control of animal diseases laid down in Regulation (EU) 2016/429 and Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687, and the principles of the OIE Code as regards risk mitigation measures for classical swine fever.

(12)

Article 143 of Regulation (EU) 2016/429 provides that animal health certificates should accompany the movements of consignments of animals, including kept porcine animals. Where derogations from the prohibition on movements of consignments of kept porcine animals from the restricted zones listed in Annex I to this Regulation are applied to such consignments intended for intra-Union movements, those animal health certificates should include a reference to this Regulation, to ensure that adequate and accurate animal health information is provided in those animal health certificates. It is necessary to mitigate the risks arising from movements of consignments, and movements for private use, of fresh meat, meat products and any other products of animal origin obtained from wild porcine animals, bodies of wild porcine animals, which are intended for human consumption, and wild porcine animals from restricted zones listed in Annex I to this Regulation within the same Member State concerned and to other Member States. Risks for the spread of disease should be reduced by prohibiting movements of those products and movements of wild porcine animals by operators as laid down in Article 101 of Commission Delegated Regulation 2020/688 (11) within and from Member States concerned and to other Member States.

(13)

Article 167(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2016/429 provides that animal health certificates issued by the competent authority of the Member State of origin are to accompany consignments of products of animal origin, including those of porcine origin, that are allowed to be moved from a restricted zone established in accordance with Article 71(3) of that Regulation subject to certain disease control measures. Where this Regulation provides for derogations from prohibitions on movements of consignments of products of animal origin from the restricted zones listed in Annex I hereto, the accompanying animal health certificates should include a reference to this Regulation, so as to ensure that adequate and accurate health information is provided in accordance with Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/2154.

(14)

Movements of consignments of fresh or processed meat and meat products, including casings, obtained from porcine animals kept in the restricted zones listed in Annex I to this Regulation, or kept outside those restricted zones but slaughtered in them, should be subject to less stringent certification requirements in order to avoid any unnecessary and overly burdensome trade restrictions. It should be possible to authorise movements of those consignments within the territory of the same Member State and to other Member States based on the health or identification marks applied in establishments, provided that those establishments are designated in accordance with rules laid down in this Regulation. The competent authorities should only designate establishments if the kept porcine animals and products thereof that are eligible for movements outside such restricted zones are clearly separated from those animals and products that are not eligible for such authorised movements.

(15)

In addition, in specific situations, fresh meat from kept porcine animals should be marked in accordance with the requirements for the marking of fresh meat from protection and surveillance zones set out in Annex IX to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687 or the fresh meat and meat products, including casings, from kept porcine animals should be marked with special marks. These special marks should not be confused with the health mark referred to in Article 48 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/627 (12) or the identification mark provided for in Article 5(1), point (b), of Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (13).

(16)

Certain risk mitigation measures and reinforced biosecurity measures are necessary in order to prevent and control classical swine fever in establishments of kept porcine animals. Those measures should be laid down in the Annex II to this Regulation and should cover establishments subject to derogations for movements of consignments of porcine animals kept in the restricted zones listed in Annex I hereto. These measures should addresses procedures and infrastructures in place in establishments of kept porcine animals; they should also address the risk of animals (other than the kept pigs) roaming in the premises and buildings. This risk is higher when related to wild porcine animals entering the premises and buildings. When other species are involved (pets or pests), acting as fomites, the risk is still present and should be addressed as well.

(17)

In accordance with the Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community (Withdrawal Agreement), and in particular Article 5(4) of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland in conjunction with Annex 2 to that Protocol, Regulation (EU) 2016/429, as well as the Commission acts based on it, apply to and in the United Kingdom in respect of Northern Ireland after the end of the transition period provided for in the Withdrawal Agreement. Therefore, references to Member States in this Regulation should include the United Kingdom in respect of Northern Ireland.

(18)

As Regulation (EU) 2016/429 applies with effect from 21 April 2021, this Regulation should apply from the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union in order to apply the measures in a timely manner.

(19)

This Regulation should apply for a period of at least five years taking into account the Union’s experience in the fight against classical swine fever and the current epidemiological situation and disease management measures in place for this disease in the Member States concerned by that disease. The duration of these measures and the restricted zones listed in Annex I to this Regulation should be monitored and reviewed when new elements appear.

(20)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed,

(1)

The Union acceded to the Convention concerning International Carriage by Rail of 9 May 1980, as amended by the Vilnius Protocol of 3 June 1999 (‘COTIF’), in accordance with Council Decision 2013/103/EU (1).

(2)

All Member States, with the exception of Cyprus and Malta, are parties to the COTIF.

(3)

Pursuant to point (f) of Article 13 § 1 of the COTIF, the Committee of Technical Experts (‘CTE’) of the Intergovernmental Organisation for International Carriage by Rail (‘OTIF’) was set up.

(4)

Pursuant to point (b) of Article 20 § 1 of the COTIF, and in accordance with Article 6 of Appendix F (‘APTU’), the CTE is competent to adopt or to amend, inter alia, the uniform technical prescriptions (‘UTP’) concerning locomotives and passengers rolling stock (‘UTP LOC PAS’), freight wagons (‘UTP WAG’), accessibility of the rail system for persons with disabilities and persons with reduced mobility (‘UTP PRM’), the technical documents of technical specification for interoperability relating to the telematic applications for freight (‘TAF TSI’) referred to in Appendix I of UTP concerning telematic applications for freight (‘UTP TAF’), UTP applicable to train composition and route compatibility checks (‘UTP TCRC’) and UTP applicable to the subsystem infrastructure (‘UTP INF’).

(5)

Finally, in accordance with Article 15 § 2 of Appendix G (‘ATMF’), the CTE is competent to propose the revision of ATMF with regard to entities in charge of maintenance (‘ECM’).

(6)

The CTE has included in the agenda of its 13th session that will take place on 22 June 2021, proposals for decisions to amend UTP LOC PAS, UTP WAG and UTP PRM, for the adoption of UTP TCRC and UTP INF, for the updating of the references to the technical documents of TAF TSI listed in Appendix I of UTP TAF and for the revision of ATMF with regard to ECM.

(7)

It is appropriate to establish the position to be taken on the Union’s behalf in the CTE and, as regards the revision of ATMF, the Revision Committee of OTIF, as the proposed decisions will be binding on the Union.

(8)

The objectives of the proposed decisions are to align UTP LOC PAS, UTP WAG and UTP PRM with Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/387 (2) and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/772 (3) respectively, to adopt new UTP TCRC and UTP INF in line with Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/773 (4) and Commission Regulation (EU) No 1299/2014 (5) as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/776 (6) and to propose to the Revision Committee of OTIF a revision of ATMF with regard to ECM to align it with Directive (EU) 2016/798 (7).

(9)

The proposed decisions are in line with the law and the strategic objectives of the Union by contributing to the alignment of OTIF legislation with the equivalent provisions of Union law and should therefore be supported by the Union,

(1)

to vote in favour of the CTE proposed amendments to UTP concerning locomotives and passenger rolling stock, as set out in the CTE Working Document TECH-20041-CTE13-UTP LOC PAS annex and TECH-20041 LOC PAS decision;

(2)

to vote in favour of the CTE proposed amendments to UTP concerning rolling stock – freight wagons, as set out in the CTE Working Document TECH-20042-CTE13 WAG draft amendments and TECH-20042 WAG decision;

(3)

to vote in favour of the CTE proposed amendments to UTP concerning accessibility of the rail system for persons with disabilities and persons with reduced mobility, as set out in the CTE Working Document TECH-20043-CTE UTP PRM draft amendments and TECH-20043 PRM decision;

(4)

to vote in favour of the CTE proposed adoption of the UTP applicable to train composition and route compatibility checks, as set out in the CTE Working Document TECH-20039 UTP TCRC and TECH-20039 TCRC decision;

(5)

to vote in favour of the CTE proposed adoption of the UTP applicable to the subsystem infrastructure, as set out in the CTE Working Document TECH-20040-UTP INF draft and TECH-20040 INF decision;

(6)

to vote in favour of the CTE proposal to update the references to the technical documents of TAF TSI listed in Appendix I of UTP TAF, as set out in the CTE Working Document TECH-21009-CTE UTP TAF decision;

(7)

to vote in favour of the revision of ATMF with regard to entities in charge of maintenance, as set out in the CTE Working Document TECH-20045 ATMF Decision.

(1)

In accordance with Article 9(2) of Directive 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (2), Member States are to regard a product for which harmonised standards have been applied, the reference numbers of which have been published in the Official Journal of the European Union, as conforming to all the relevant requirements of the applicable implementing measure to which such standards relate. Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EU) 2019/2023 (3) and Annex III thereto lay down the relevant measurement and calculation requirements for household washing machines and household washer-dryers.

(2)

In accordance with Article 13 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1369 of the European Parliament and of the Council (4), after the adoption of a delegated act pursuant to Article 16 of that Regulation setting specific labelling requirements, the Commission is to publish references to the harmonised standards that satisfy the relevant measurement and calculation requirements of the delegated act in the Official Journal of the European Union. Where such harmonised standards are applied during the conformity assessment of a product, the model is to be presumed to be in conformity with the relevant measurement and calculation requirements of the delegated act. Article 3 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/2014 (5) and Annex IV thereto lay down measurement and calculation requirements for household washing machines and household washer-dryers.

(3)

By Implementing Decision C(2020)4329 (6), the Commission made a request to the European Committee for Standardization (CEN), the European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization (Cenelec) and the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) to revise existing harmonised standards on household dishwashers, household washing machines and household washer-dryers in support of Regulations (EU) 2019/2022 and (EU) 2019/2023 and Delegated Regulations (EU) 2019/2017 and (EU) 2019/2014.

(4)

On the basis of the request set out in Implementing Decision C(2020)4329, Cenelec revised the harmonised standards EN 60456:2016 and EN 50229:2015 in order to take account of the technical and scientific progress. This resulted in the adoption of the amendment EN 60456:2016/A11:2020 and of a new harmonised standard EN IEC 62512:2020, as amended by EN IEC 62512:2020/A11:2020.

(5)

The Commission together with Cenelec, has assessed whether the harmonised standards EN 60456:2016, as amended by EN 60456:2016/A11:2020, and EN IEC 62512:2020, as amended by EN IEC 62512:2020/A11:2020, comply with the request set out in Implementing Decision C(2020) 4329.

(6)

The harmonised standards EN 60456:2016, as amended by EN 60456:2016/A11:2020, and EN IEC 62512:2020, as amended by EN IEC 62512:2020/A11:2020, satisfy the requirements which they aim to cover and which are set out in Regulation (EU) 2019/2023 and Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/2014.

(7)

Points ZA.4.9 and ZA.4.10 of harmonised standards EN 60456:2016 and EN IEC 62512:2020 should be excluded from publication given that those points make a reference to the application of European standardisation deliverables CLC/TS 50577 and CLC/TS 50707:2019. Reference to European standardisation deliverables in a harmonised standard is incompatible with the nature of harmonised standards. The European standardisation deliverables and harmonised standards, as defined in Article 2(1) and (2) of Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012, are two different instruments serving different purposes. Such reference is also contrary to the request set out in Implementing Decision C(2020)4329 which covers only harmonised standards.

(8)

The column ‘Remarks/Notes*’ of Table ZZA.1 in harmonised standards EN 60456:2016 and EN IEC 62512:2020 for the purposes of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/2014 and the column ‘Remarks/Notes*’ of Table ZZB.1 in those standards for the purposes of Regulation (EU) 2019/2023 should be excluded from publication due to inconsistency of those columns with requirements in the main normative body of the standards and due to legal uncertainty resulting from the interpretation of the legal effect of presumption of conformity included in the footnote to those columns.

(9)

It is therefore appropriate to publish the reference of harmonised standards EN 60456:2016, as amended by EN 60456:2016/A11:2020, and EN IEC 62512:2020, as amended by EN IEC 62512:2020/A11:2020, in the Official Journal of the European Union with restriction.

(10)

Harmonised standard EN 60456:2016, as amended by EN 60456:2016/A11:2020, replaces harmonised standards EN 60456:2016 and EN 60704-2-4:2012, published by Commission communication 2016/C 416/01 (7). Harmonised standard EN IEC 62512:2020, as amended by EN IEC 62512:2020/A11:2020, replaces harmonised standard EN 50229:2015, as corrected by EN 50229:2015/AC:2016, published by Commission communication 2016/C 416/02 (8). It is therefore appropriate to repeal those communications.

(11)

Compliance with a harmonised standard confers a presumption of conformity with the corresponding requirements set out in Union harmonisation legislation from the date of publication of the reference of such standard in the Official Journal of the European Union. This Decision should therefore enter into force on the date of its publication,