ASCE T&DIAUTOMATED PEOPLE MOVER STANDARDS COMMITTEE

MEETING MINUTES ORLANDO, FLORIDA, USA MAY 5 & 6, 2005

Attendees

Tom McGean Chairman Mike Johnson, Fl DOTLarry Smith Secretary Steve Yates, ATLJon Esslinger Director, T&DI Chris Smith, ATLMike Riseborough, GTAA Tedd Snyder, Booz Allen HamiltonAlex Klimmer, DDC John Dexter, Booz Allen HamiltonAl Hartkorn, Transit Safety Jim Tuten, FutrexTony Garcia, Clark County Gary Houts, TPABill Hathaway, Consultant Bob Griebenow, Berger/AbamMurthy Bondada, Consultant Mike Shumack, MCO Victor Howe, SFO Ron Kangas, Innovative ConsultingBill Showalter, Advanced Transit Gerry Winters, GTAAMartin Lowson, Advanced Transport John Champ,APM consultant David Mountford, Bombardier Frank Culver, Washington GroupChuck Elm, Consultant John Kapala, IACRod Falvey, L+E Ray Warner, Walt Disney Eng.Darin Friedmann, Mitsubishi HI Jorg Nahke, LogplanPeter DeLeonardis, Horton Diana Morse, FAADennis Reed, CPUC Alex Inserto, Insul-8Richard Prell, Insul-8 Mike Ang, JakesLloyd Welch, Las Vegas Mono.

1. OPENING: Tom McGean opened the meeting at 8:35 am, on Thursday, May 5, and welcomed the new attendees and asked the group to briefly introduce themselves. Tom asked Ray Warner to inform the group of the plans of the Walt Disney Host Team for the meeting, tour and social event.

2. APPROVAL OF MIAMI MINUTES: A motion to approve the minutes from the February 10 &11, 2005 meeting was made by Steve Yates, seconded by Frank Culver and motion carried.

3. LOCATION OF NEXT THREE MEETINGS: The next meeting will be in Toronto, Canada, Sept. 22 & 23, 2005, immediately after the ACI/NA Conference. Tom introduced Mike Riseborough of GTAA and Mike distributed a brochure outlining the fall program that GTAA would host. A preliminary show of hands indicated that about 20 spouses were likely to attend. The dates of the ACI/NA Conference are September 18-21 and the Elevator Conference on September 25-26, both in Toronto.

The winter meeting will be in Tampa on Feb. 9 & 10, 2006 hosted by Gary Houts and Tampa Airport.

The summer meeting will be hosted by Bombardier in New York and feature the new system at JFK.

Offers from potential hosts for fall 06 include Wash. DC/Chuck Elms and a MHI Asian site.

4. REPORT ON T&DI ACTIVITIES: Jon Esslinger presented his Director’s report of May 5, 2005 and distributed a copy of the 6 page report and a copy of the upcoming ASCE APM 07 Conference Program scheduled for Vienna, May 13-16, 2007 to each attendee

5. REPORT OF AIRPORT APM USERS: Mike Shumack reported that he was the new Chairman, and Gary Houts, Vice Chair. The recent change in officer roster was prompted by John Champ’s departure from DIA. The group may consider opening membership to other user groups.

6. REPORT ON MEMBERSHIP: Jon Esslinger gave a brief report on membership and related that he has 4 applications pending for slots in specific categories. The ASCE rule that mandates dropping a member after failure to respond to two consecutive ballots has opened some slots including the resignation of Bob Good who has retired from Bombardier and now lives and works for a rail car manufacturer in Australia. It was also noted for the record that no new members could be added during the time of an open balloting process.

7. CONFIGURATION CONTROL &WEBSITE, REPORT: Mike Shumack gave a report on the progress made on configuration control and the policy of maintaining only the most recent version of work pieces. All work requires the Title, author’s name and version date. Mike also maintains the APMStandards.org site.

Jon Esslinger restated the ASCE policy regarding web access and spam control measures and it appears that both sites maintain the same kind of password protection and access to committee data. Esslinger advised that we can not put members email addresses on our website, only the emails of the officers are allowed by ASCE policy. The Chair asked for help on editorial assistance and Frank Culver volunteered to inquire within WGI and report back on availability.

8. DATABASE AND NFPA UPDATES: Bill Hathaway suggested that the Model Elevator Law be placed on the website and also indicated that the NFPA 2003 version released had some shortcomings and may be amended soon as a corrected version. Bill Hathaway and Bob Gribenow need to draft requests for updates to databases and forward this request to Frank Culver for distribution.Bob Griebenow was handling the Station data, Bill Hathaway, the US Regulatory data, (Alain Levy, European/international regulatory data), L+E, NFPA issues.

. 9. AWARDS PROGRAM: Steve Yates stated that donations are always welcome and tax deductible.

Jon Esslinger reported that we were still $375 in debt. This year’s awards will not be bought until the debt is cleared as instructed by the committee in Miami.

10. IEC WORKING GROUP 39 & 40 REPORTS: Alex Klimmer represented the committee at the last meeting in Vienna April 21-22, 2005. The IEC WG 39 draft will be sent out for public review soon and the Chairman will arrange to have the draft distributed by Frank Culver to all. Peter DeLeonardis will check to see if it is ok to post the draft on the APM web and eroom sites. The next meeting of the working groups will be in Hong Kong in Oct. 20 &21, 2005. The Chairman read a letter from Sam Lott regarding the working group activities.

11. REPORT FROM NEW RECOMMENDED PRACTICES WG: John Dexter asked to defer discussion until the next meeting. (Chapter 17 of Part 4)

12. SESSION AT ORLANDO APM CONFERENCE: Larry Smith distributed a Conference Session Update sheet, (Appendix A.). The session focused on the issue of the Elevator Industry Work Preservation Fund’s Model Elevator Law. Larry asked that we defer further discussion until Friday during the EIWPF agenda item

13. PART 4 BALLOT RESOLUTION – SVAD MATERIAL: Chuck Elms led the resolution of ballot comments and the Chairman will issue the official Resolution Response. There appears to be a need for final edit to check for the sequencing of numbers, etc.

14. LINE x LINE REVIEW OF SECURITY SECTION: Bill Hathaway led the review and a motion was made by Bill Showalter and seconded by Mike Shumack to put the final version to ballot and motion carried. The final version to be balloted will be posted in the eroom.

15. REVIEW OF PART 2 PRIOR TO REAFFIRMATION BALLOT: Frank Culver led the review and will continue the review at the next meeting.

Diana Morse volunteered to review the other chapters in Part 2 specifically to search for words or terms that may mislead regarding the general use of the concept of “qualifications” throughout.

Jon Esslinger was asked to research the ASCE files to find all official requests for interpretation and official responses of ASCE 21 and transmit them to the Chair. The Chairman recalled only a few but lost his files during the fire at his office.

16. RESOLUTION OF COMMENTS ON DOOR INTERPRETATION BALLOT: The Chairman led the ballot resolution for all comments and will issue the ballot report and final letter to Dopplemyer..

17. PART ONE REAFFIRMATION BALLOT RESOLUTION: The Chairman led the resolution of the Part One ballot and will issue the ballot report.

18. MODEL ELEVATOR LAW, (MEL), REPORT AND DISCUSSION: Larry Smith led the discussion and asked that members hold comment for open discussion until members of the Task Force could make short briefings.

Dennis Reed gave a briefing during Thursday’s session about the events and status of regulatory activities in California since the State adopted the MEL. Dennis was awaiting resolution of jurisdictional responsibilities and will keep the committee informed of developments. It appears that conflict exist within the State regulatory departments concerning the government oversight of APM’s, specifically the new system at SFO. Dennis is in the California Public Utilities Commission and they have been the oversight agency and have used safety criteria derived from rail transit. The new law introduces safety criteria derived from elevators and that would be administered by a different regulatory department within the State. Other APM’s within the State would also be affected.

Chuck Elms presented a power point on the apparent contradictory language in the MEL as related to the intent of ASCE 21..

Jonathan Esslinger gave a presentation of the ASCE existing certification program and distributed a brochure of one program leading to post professional certification in the field of Water Resources Engineering.

Mike Shumack related that GOAA had become aware of the MEL about two years ago and succeeded in getting airport APM’s removed from the Florida law. They were not aware it was a nationwide campaign and so did not bring to the committee’s attention. The subcommittee to draft language describing Inspector Qualification as intended by ASCE 21 was led by Al Hartkorn and members Gary Houts and Tony Garcia. Al presented two drafts and asked for committee directions or preferences before redrafting a consolidated single version. The committee favored the short form. Al will have versions posted in the eroom.

Considerable debate ensued on many issues and several proposals of motions were offered along with consensus sensing on various action plans. The committee consensus was that we should not pursue ASCE certification at this time. Chuck Elms suggested that we attempt to find or identify other stakeholders and coordinate a unified action plan. Other organizations mentioned were, APTA, ASME, The State Professional Engineers oversight agencies, and others.

A motion to “have Gary Houts draft a letter for ASCE to send to ASME and express concerns regarding the MEL and ask the Elevator Code committee to research the QEI standard and certification process and determine if it is possibly being misused and presenting potential safety risk and liability”, was made by Bill Hathaway and seconded by John Dexter and motion carried. The Chairman acknowledged that Gary would perform this task.

A motion to “review all part four issues of qualification wording as related to the MEL and then recommend changes if any”, was made by Chuck Elms, seconded by John Dexter and motion carried. The Chairman appointed Diana Morse and Bill Showalter to perform this task. John Dexter will also review this work as part of his Chapter 17 task assignment.

A motion to “invite a representative of the EIWPF to attend our next public meeting and meet with a small group of committee members at an informal get-together with 2-3 members to explain our issues but not represent the committee at the Bridge Builders session” was made by John Dexter, seconded by Ron Kangas and carried. The Chairman will send a notice and arrange the small group meeting to be held in Toronto.

The Chairman acknowledged the fine work of our host, WDI & SAAT and Ray Warner and long time member Greg Hale for arranging and providing the transportation and tour of the GM Test Track, the excellent dinner and evening at Pleasure Island, the continental breakfasts and working lunch and breaks for the meeting, the Segway Trials and so much more. Meeting adjourned at 3:30 pm.

The Special Session originally entitled. “APM STANDARDS: MAINSTREAM TO INNOVATION”, will now focus on the recent developments regarding the ELEVATOR INDUSTRY WORK PRESERVATION FUND’S, (EIWPF), MODEL ELEVATOR CODE, (MEC), which has been adopted by ten or more states, ( CA, AL, GA, HI, IL, ME part, RI, TX, VT part, WI ). The EIWPF’s Model Elevator Code has included APM’s as “equipment” covered by the statute and mandates specific Permitting, Licensing, Inspection and Testing, and Registration compliance requirements.

APM Industry viewpoints of owners, operators, consultants, suppliers, government regulators and an overview of ASCE’s certification activities, will be discussed.

MODERATOR: Larry Smith, P.E., F. ASCE current Secretary of the ASCE APM Standards Committee and former Senior Director of Construction Management and Director of Facilities at Tampa International Airport

THE EVOLUTION OF APM START UPS AND ACCEPTANCE PRIOR TO THE EIWPF MEC: LLOYD WELCH Transit System Management, LasVegas Monorail

VIEWPOINT OF THE PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER REGARDING THE INTERPRETATION OF MEC AND ASCE CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR SYSTEM VERIFICATION, ACCEPTANCE AND DEMONSTRATION: CHUCK ELMS,P.E. Consultant & Task Force Leader of recently balloted Part 4 “System Verification and Demonstration, ASCE 21

APM OWNER/OPERATOR – NEW AND EXISTING SYSTEMS - CONTINUING O&M AND CERTIFICATIONS: MIKE RISEBOROUGH, Greater Toronto Aviation Authority /GARY HOUTS, Tampa International Airport

APM SYSTEM MANUFACTURERS AND INSTALLERS: PETER DeLEONARDIS, Transit Door Product Manager, Horton Automatics

REGULATORY AGENCYS AND THE APPLICATION OF ASCE 21 REQUIREMENTS AND RELATED STANDARDS: DENNIS REED, California Public Utilities Commission

ASCE’S CERTIFICATION PROGRAM: JONATHAN C. ESSLINGER, P.E., Director, Transportation & Development Institute of ASCE

Excerpts from the Model Elevator Code:

Section 1.2This chapter covers the design, construction, operation, inspection maintenance, alteration and repair of AUTOMATED GUIDED TRANSIT VEHICLES on guideways with an exclusive right of way. This equipment includes, but is not limited to, AUTOMATED PEOPLE MOVERS Section 23.1ANNUAL INSPECTIONS: (Certificate of Operation required), It shall be the responsibility of the owner of all new and existing conveyances located in any building or structure to have the conveyance inspected annually ( ASME A 17.1, category one) by a LICENSED ELEVATOR INSPECTOR.

Section 23.2 It shall be the responsibility of the OWNER of all conveyances to have a LICENSED ELEVATOR CONTRACTOR, as described herein this chapter, insure that the required test are preformed at intervals in compliance with the ASME A 17.1, ASME A18.1 and ASCE 21.

Section 23.3 All test shall be performed by a LICENSED ELEVATOR MECHANIC.

DEFINITIONS: 4.15 ELEVATOR INSPECTOR – Any person, as defined in ASME QEI as an inspector who possesses an ELEVATOR INSPECTOR’S LICENSE in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.

The SPECIAL SESSION will be in FIESTA 7 ROOM 10:30 Am – NOON Wednesday May 4

ELEVATORS, MOVING WALKS, DUMBWAITERS & NOW APM’S?

Ballot Attachments:

Attach 1: Voter Comment Resolutions Part 1Attach 2: Reballot of Part 1Attach 3: Voter Comments Part 4 SVADAttach 4: Doppelmayr Door Ballot

Attach 1: Voter Comment Resolutions Part 1American Society of Civil Engineers

Reaffirmation Ballot, "Automated People Movers Standard, Part 1"

Voters CommentsBallot Closing: 01/05/2005Printed:

1Affirm With Comment

Dupre, Didier Accepted with modified wording An editorial change will be made in Section 2.1 by John Dexter to reference non US ClimatesItem 1.3 :There are only USA standards considered in the list. We suggest adding to the list the opportunity to consider other families of standards, such as EN standards. EN standards are of large application over the world. This would make possible to suggest more easily APM standard application out of USA.

Additional general question relating to APM definition :We are still puzzled with the APM definition. How to segregate people movers systems falling in the metro category versus people movers category ? Comment rejected Covered previously Johnson, James Mike Non persuasive1.5 Add a definition for System Safety Program Plan (SSPP). The definition should be consistent with that in the Federal Transit Administration fixed guideway system state safety oversight regulations. The following definition is recommended: "a document developed and adopted by the fixed guideway transportation system (in this case it could state "owner" or "operator") detailing its safety policies, objectives, responsibilities, and procedures. Martin, Charles All accepted as editorial changes1) Section 1.2/last sentence - Remove the "l" after "completely".

2) Section 1.4 - Add references as follows:

IEEE Std 1474.1-2004, IEEE Standard for Communications-Based Train Control (CBTC) Performance and Functional Requirements (cited in 5)

NFPA 72-2002, (TITLE?)...(cited in 6.1.6)

3) Section 1.4 - For NFPA 130, change "(cited in 6.1)" to "(cited in 6.1.2)" so as to be consistent with other cited references. Mc Gean, Thomas Accepted as editorial changeAdd in the references, Section 1.4, a reference to IEEE 1474, Communications Based Train Control which is reverenced in Chapter 5. Schrader, Obe Found nonpersuasiveSection 1.5 – Definition for Dynamic Sign – May want to add after, “changed;” “to reflect current or momentary conditions and messages.”

NegativeHartkorn, Albert Withdrawn by Mr. Hartkorn at meetingDefine 'System Safety Program Plan' (SSPP) as "a document adopted by (the operating agency/contractor)detailing safety policies, objectives, responsibilities, and procedures" [FTA Rule 659.5]. Sections 3.1, 3.1.1 & Annex A.1.1 offer various statements on what a SSPP means that are not consistent and, consequently provide a basis for misinterpretation on a specific APM Project and between APM Systems being designed or in operation. See also comments on Annex A, A.1.1. 

2Affirm With Comment

Howe, Victor Covered in Part 3 NonpersuasiveShould be a section for earthquakes. There should be a section for the system operating near the ocean.System must operate with all ambient conditions. 

3Affirm With Comment

Dupre, Didier Item 3.1.2. : Resolution strategies. Previously considered by committee No new informationWe are not comfortable with the list due to non independency of different items of the list. It is particularly clear for item 6, that is always the aim of the process. We suggest 3 categories only, classified by priority: 1: eliminate the hazard. 2 : mitigation by design. 3 : mitigation by procedure.

Item 3.2 : Please note that there are known cases encountered in projects that do not allow to apply such general rule. As an example, broken rail or broken turn out cases cannot satisfy this general rule. No alternate wording provided. Rejected Hartkorn, Albert Non persuasiveUnder 3.1, delete the 'and' in "The System Safety Program and Plan".The System Safety Program Plan IS the Plan. Hoelscher, James accepted editorial changeInsert a blank line after item E Improbable - .. and before the paragraph that begins, "It is understood... (page 13 Table 1)

The paragraph is not part of the definition for improbable. The paragraph applies to all categories (A through E). Johnson, James Mike Withdrawn by Mr. Johnson at meeting

The description and purpose of the System Safety Program Plan should be consistent with the definition recommended for Chapter 1. 

NegativeWarner, RaySuggest eliminating section 3.1 (2) as being too vague or otherwise encompassing. Withdrawn by Mr. Warner at meeting.

Section 3.1 (3) Suggest replacement wording..."Identify incident reporting structure." Reason: In large organizations it is more important to identify a clear incident reporting structure and hierarchy rather than specific individuals. I disagree with "accountability" as a reporting structure will imply responsibility and therefore accountability. Withdrawn by Mr. Warner at meeting

Section 3.1. The individual identified....I suggest that this sentence be eliminated as being redundant. Also in large companies the system safety program is an organization unto itself with its own internal reporting structure and "front line" people do not report directly to "Top" management. Also it is vague as to what "top" management is. Found nonpersuasive UNRESOLVED NEGATIVE REBALLOT

Section 3.1 (4) This section is redundant and already covered under 3.1 (3) (my suggested wording) Therefore this section should be stricken. Withdrawn by Mr. Warner at meeting

Section 3.1 (5) Suggest new wording..."Preventative maintenance procedures must be written for the expected life cycle of the product. These preventative maintenance procedures must take into account dynamic envelop maintenance wherever applicable." Reason...A hazard identification and resolution process must be done as part of the design and is used in the development of the PMs. Withdrawn by Mr. Warner at meeting

Section 3.1 (6) Suggest that this section be eliminated as being standard policy of any reasonably run company and if not, then this section would carry no weight anyway. Withdrawn by Mr. Warner at meeting 

4Affirm With Comment

Smith, LawrenceThe colloquial expression "Grace Time" is used five times in Chapter 4 and capitalized each time. It is also used in sect 4.1.2 Exceptions, (1) almost as a definition. I believe the expression "Grace Time" should be defined in Definitions section and include that it is an optional concept and may be zero but must be a constant for all cases if it is used at all. Found nonpersuasive

Sect 5.4 Manual Operation Limitations. First line, delete the word "extended" as it is subjective and not needed. Rejected No new information provided. Already considered 

5Affirm With Comment

Dupre, Didier Item 5.1.2. : With regard to the stopping distance, we are not - comfortable with item 6 : worst case load. We do not understand why the worst case has to be considered considering that the load

measurement can be reliably performed on the trains. We believe that this chapter is confusing : does it relay to the stopping distance as a pre-requisite for track and CW design or does it relate to real time train kinetic energy control ? Found nonpersuasive

Item 5.1.2. : section Coupling : We are not comfortable with the sentence : "entire maneuver is conducted under the protection of ATP". As a mater of fact, during train rescue coupling process, such movement requires to disable the train kinetic energy control since the rescuing train has to couple with the failed train.Found nonpersuasive

Item 5.1.9 : We are not comfortable with the word "unlock" as we believe it can be reasonably acceptable to continue the train movement to the next station stop with unlocked door providing that door opening is prevented using specific device (eg : door leaves motor activation to keep the door closed the door). We would be more comfortable if the word “Open” was put in place of the word “unlock”. Please consider “UITP” principles for door unlocking in case of emergency. Previously considered, no new information rejected

Item 5.2.3. Please consider to discuss the synchronization of train door and PSD doors inhibition in case of any failed door on the train or on the station. No alternative wording provided. Invalid comment Howe, Victor No alternative wording. InvalidSystem Operations Display should have the means to be recorded.This recording will help with reconstruction down time events. Martin, Charles Accepted editorial1) Chapter 5/Title - Delete "CHAPTER 5" and title as "5 Automatic Train Control (ATC)". Note, This format change from the previous version was made to all other chapters except this one. Is it our intent to drop the CHAPTER designations?

2) Chapter 5/Paragraph 2 - Change "IEEE P1474.1" to "IEEE 1474.1-2004" as per the confirmed/official designation of the to be published standard. Tuten, James Non persuasive5.1.2 In this section the term "worst case" is used to describe a load. In this instance "worst case" needs to be better defined, or the original "maximum crush" should be retained. 

NegativeWarner, Ray Withdrawn by Mr. Warner at meeting WPara 5.1.2 Replace "worst-case" with Crush or "maximum design". "Worst case" load is rather vague and does not generally have an industry accepted definition. 

6Affirm With Comment

Howe, Victor Non persuasiveSection on Guideway surveillance should added.The guideway monitoring system shall be capable of monitoring and controlling pan, tilt and zoom type cameras. Martin, Charles Comments accepted, editorial

1) Section 6.1.3 - Should "UL 813 - 1993 be listed in Section 1.4?

2) Section 6.1.6/Items a, b and c (three places) - Change "NFPA 72, 2002" to "NFPA 72-2002" so as to be consistent with other standards designations.

3) Section 6.1.6/Items b and d - Should the DAQ 3/TSB88 reference be added to Section 1.4? Shumack, Michael Section 6.1.4 Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Personnel Communications. Currently reads "The APM System shall include an internal telephone/intercom system connecting Central Control, all maintenance and storage areas, all administrative offices, and selected equipment rooms." Change to: "The APM System shall include an internal telephone/intercom system connecting Central Control, all administrative offices and maintenance areas, and selected storage and equipment rooms."RE: The intent of this paragraph is not to provide phone or intercom to all storage rooms - rather to those areas where personnel are typically located. Accepted. Editorial

6.3.2 Stations. Comment found nonpersuasiveCurrently reads: "Each station platform shall be provided with automatic audible and visual warnings that signal the arrival and departure of trains."Change to: "Each station platform shall be provided with automatic audible and visual warnings that signal the arrival and departure of trains except for shuttle systems where the platform design allows passengers to view the guideway/APM vehicle as it enters/exits the station and where the guideway is separated from the platform with automatic doors."RE: In situations where passengers can view the APM train on the guideway, knows the direction from which it will enter/exit the station, and are protected from accidental contact with the train (by automatic doors), there is no cost benefit to installing automatic audible and visual warning devices. 

NegativeWarner, Ray Accepted. Will require reballotPara 6.1.6 Suggest deleting the avoidance of "synthesized" speech. Reason...future developments could easily make synthesized speech more desirable than human speech. 

7Affirm With Comment

Dupre, Didier Invalid comments. No wording provided Posed as questionsAnx A.1.2.9. : Please consider to introduce this section as a general statement. From safety personnel perspective, it is difficult to organize such programme which is usually carried out by training team. Such activity is difficult to organize in relation to the safety process.

Anx A.2.2. : We are not comfortable with items b and g. These items relate to failures which suggest that we try to perform an FMECA part of the PHA. As a principle, PHA is by nature inductive, from the danger to the cause. So the starting point should not be the failure. FMECA is usually addressed in SHA and SSHA.Item d : Please clarify this sentence that we do not understand.

Anx A.3 : Please explain why the SSHA is addressed before the SHA in annexe A. Is there a mater

of sequence ? If yes, please explain why.

Anx A.5 : Please clarify "operational and support procedure". If the standard intends to perform the OSHA on the basis of the operator procedure, if will fail the purpose of item of § 5.2. item b. Operation procedure are usually available at the end of the project studies, when the design is already firmed up. We suggest to base the OSHA analysis on preliminary operating principles studies and return on experience.

Additional general question relating to safety process:Is it really necessary to describe the safety process to be applied in this standard as there are already existing dedicated standards for this purpose ? Johnson, James Mike InvalidThis Annex appears to more appropriately address the activities associated with a Safety Certification Program Plan(SCPP)rather than the System Safety Program Plan (SSPP). The SCPP identifies and describes the activities during the design and construction of the system to establish a certifiable level of safety prior to start-up of passenger service operations. Suggest that the provisions of a SCPP be included in this Annex rather than those of the SSPP, since the SSPP normally becomes effective after system start-up. Schrader, ObeSection A.1.2.3 – Para. “c”, first word should be “Identify” not “Identity” accepted editorialSection A.2.2 – Para. “d”, 4th line “effects of” not “effects if” accepted editorialSection A2.2 – Last sentence – does not make sense or is not clear as written invalidSection A.5.2 – Last sentence should say after “changes,” “including software design changes which affect System Safety.” Non persuasive

Vom Hovel, Rudiger accepted editorialThe Annex should be listed in the Contents 

NegativeHartkorn, Albert Mr. Hartkorn withdrew his negative comment at the meeting provided that an editorial addition to the annex be made to make it clear that equivalent means are acceptable.This Annex should not be 'Mandatory'. There are numerous techniques for conducting safety analysis. (Refer to Comments, Annex B.) Section A.1 is not a "System Safety Program Plan" (SSPP); it has more of the features of a Safety Certification Program Plan (SCPP). An SSPP seldom involves design/engineering contractor activities which are Certification activities. The SSPP generally is developed and implemented for an operating system and involves only programmatic milestones. The SCPP provides for most activities identified that involve engineering and design (and construction). Refer to comments for Annex B and the "Handbook for Transit Safety and Security Certification" (DOT-FTA-MA-90-5006-02-01) and the "System Safety Analysis Handbook" (System Safety Society) containing over 100 safety analysis techniques. Smith, Lawrence Accepted editorial. Larry, Chuck Elms and Jim Hoelscher to work out the editorial changessect A.1.2.1 (c) Delete the word "contractually" as it limits a broader scope. sect A.1.2.2 (b),(c),(d),(e) The references to "contractor", "subcontractors", are too limiting and exclude a wider scope which should include the owner/operator. Many of the functions of the SSPP should be carried on by the owner for the life of the system after the "contractors" are no longer involved. A word change or definition of the "responsible party" will meet the broader intent.

 8

Affirm With CommentHartkorn, AlbertIdentify the correct title for the 'APTA Guidelines for System Programs', which should read, "Manual for the Development of Rail Transit System Safety Program Plans". Add the following two publications to the Bibliography: accepted editorial

"Handbook for Transit Safety and Security Certification" (DOT-FTA-MA-90-5006-02-01) and

"System Safety Analysis Handbook" (System Safety Society) Accepted editorial

These additional documents will assist the designer/engineer to apply and conduct safety programs and analysis appropriate to the job. Howe, Victor InvalidA reference to some standard for updating software and documentation changes. Johnson, James Mike accepted editorialThe following document should be included for guidance in the Safety and Security Certification process:

"Handbook for Transit Safety and Security Certification"DOT-FTA-MA-90-5006-02-01DOT-VNTSC-FTA-02-12

This document identifies the key activities and resources necessary to develop and implement a certification program for safety and security, and provides the tools and sample forms to promote implementation of the safety and security certification process. Vom Hovel, Rudiger accepted editorialthe revisions of the following standards in Annex B have to be updated:

EN 50126, September 1999

EN 50128, March 2001

EN 50129, February 2003

The Annex should be listed in the ContentsGeneral

Schrader, Obe accepted editorialThe T of C pagination is off quite a bit and there are a few paragraph position errors.

Attach 2: Reballot of Part 1

REBALLOT OF PART 1

UNRESOLVED NEGATIVE

Mr. Ray Warner submitted a negative comment to the reaffirmation of Part 1. The comment was as follows:

Section 3.1., last sentence. “The individual identified to carry out the System Safety Program shall have clear authority to insure the implementation and shall report directly to top management..” Mr. Warner states: “I suggest that this sentence be eliminated as being redundant. Also in large companies the system safety program is an organization unto itself with its own internal reporting structure and "front line" people do not report directly to "Top" management. Also it is vague as to what "top" management is.”

Meeting in Miami the committee found this comment nonpersuasive. This material has been in the standard since it was issued in 1996. The issue was not raised when revisions to the standard were solicited from the committee. The reasons given had all been discussed at length when the material was first developed in the 1990’s. Mr. Warner does not wish to withdraw his negative vote.

A vote of affirmative will support the committee position to reject Mr. Warners suggestion.

SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE

Mr. Ray Warner submitted a negative comment to the reaffirmation of Part 1. The comment was as follows:

Para 6.1.6 Mr. Warner states: “Suggest deleting the avoidance of "synthesized" speech. Reason...future developments could easily make synthesized speech more desirable than human speech.”

Meeting in Miami, the committee found this comment persuasive. Since 1996 there have been vast strides in the area of synthesized speech and it can be quite acceptable. Since the new standard has a rigorous intelligibility test, there is no need to prohibit synthesized speech.

A vote of affirmative will support the committee position to accept Mr. Warner’s suggestion.

Attach 3: Voter Comments Part 4 SVAD

American Society of Civil Engineers

Automated People Movers, "First Committee Ballot to Approve Part 4, Chapter 14"

Voters CommentsBallot Closing: 04/12/2005Printed:

1Affirm With Comment

Martin, Charles14.3/Item #5 - In the second sentence, change "Verification tests procedures" to "Verification inspection or test procedures" to be compatible with usage in items 'a.' through 'm.'. Accepted Editorial Smith, LawrenceSecond paragraph in 14.4 refers to Chapter 16 - I believe this is a typo and should read Chapter 17. Accepted Editorial, modified wording

NegativeVom Hovel, RudigerIt is not clear how to read Table 14.1- some of the Verification Types do not explain themselves. Where are they defined or explained? E.g. what is Design Review? What is Analysis? Do you mean an analysis made by the Designer ora second / cross-analysis executed by a Verifying Authority?Who is the Verifying Authority?- Does the Verification Type required for a high-level section apply also for the subsections? If yes, why do we need e.g. a specific Verification Type for section 3.4 when it is already specified forsection 3? If not, why is no Verification type specified for sections 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 or subsections thereof?Independent from the resolution of the previous bullet points every top-level section heading should appear to improve readability even if no Verification Type is associated to it.Invalid, no reasons or alternate wording provided 

2Affirm With Comment

Clarissou, YvesCODE A : we suggest to delete the word "specific" for the definition : "an analysis must be

submitted"the word specific is misleading - it may be understood that a project-specific analysis ins needed, and this is not the intent. Accepted EditorialCODE E : previous experience : how should previous experience be documented ? (note this code E appears only twice in the table). Accepted editorial, alternate wording Howe, VictorSection 6.1.6 Communications should check for system Over Load. At what point does the system stop receiving calls? Does the caller know that the call did not go thru? Nonpersuasive no overload requirement exists in the standard to be verified by a test

Section 6.2.2 CCTV equipment should be checked for night viewing. What is the sensitivity of the camera at night. Nonpersuasive. This is covered by current wording in standard. A special night requirement is not needed.

Section 6.2.3 Recording quality of CCTV equipment should be checked at night. Nonpersuasive. There is no special night requirement to be verified. Martin, CharlesAdd Section 5.2.1 Motion Control to the table grouped with 5.2.2 and 5.2.3. Nonpersuasive. This is covered by 7.7.3.1.1 and 7.7.3.1.2 

NegativeVom Hovel, RudigerRefer to comment for item # 1 Invalid No reasons or alternate wording provided 

3Affirm With Comment

Ogawa, Hiroshi7.4.4.6 It may be difficult to demonstrate frame rigidity. Accepted editorial alternate words7.12.2.1 It may be difficult to inspect ventilation and isolated enclosure. Nonpersausive, it is not a problem to inspect this 

NegativeVom Hovel, RudigerRefer to comment for item # 1 Invalid No alternate words or reasons 

4Affirm With Comment

Howe, VictorSection 9.1.1 Blue light stations should have a demonstration preformed on them as well as inspection. Change to “D”. Accepted editorialOgawa, Hiroshi9.1.5 It may be difficult to demonstrate redundancy. Nonpersuausive10.3 It may be difficult to demonstrate every possible misaligned features. Nonpersuasive 

NegativeVom Hovel, RudigerRefer to comment for item # 1 Invalid No reasons or alternate words

 

Attach 4: Doppelmayr Door Ballot

Automated People Movers – “Doppelmayr Interpretation” Ballot Closing 3/31/05

Resolution of comments

Summary: All negative comments were invalid or withdrawn.

Question 4 Negative

Elms, Reed and Tadi: Invalid, no reason or alternate words

Question 5 Negative

Elms, Reed and Tadi: Invalid, no reason or alternate words

Question 6 Negative

Withdrawn by Rhyner with understanding that a sensor and detector at the top and bottom of the door are acceptable.

Question 8 – Negative

Elms, Reed and Tadi: Invalid, no reason or alternate words

Question 9 – Negative

Elms, Reed and Tadi: Invalid, no reason or alternate words

Question 10 – Affirm with Comment

Kangas – Invalid. Posed as a question. No reasons or alternate words

Question 10 Negative

Elms and Tadi: Invalid, no reason or alternate words

Howe: Withdrawn