Explanatory Memorandum to COM(2023)443 - Use of railway infrastructure capacity in the single European railway area - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2023)443 - Use of railway infrastructure capacity in the single European railway area. |
|---|---|
| source | COM(2023)443  |
| date | 11-07-2023 |
# Reasons for and objectives ofthe proposal
Rail is an environmentally friendly mode of transport. In 2020, rail transport accounted for 5.1 % of p a sse n g e r tr a n s p o rt between EU countries and 11.5% of freight transport b etw een EU countries, but only 0.4% of greenhouse gas emissions from transport in the EU. This is because rail transport is so energyeff icient — accounting for only 1.9% of the energy consumption of transport — and because most rail traffic runs on electrified lines. Rail transport is so environmentally friendly and has so many other benefits, such as its high level of safety, that EU policy has consistently promoted it.
This proposal is a key action of the European Green Deal and the Sustainable and Smart M o b i I i ty Strategy. Its main goal is to lay down a framework allowing rail infrastructure capacity and trafficto be managed more efficiently, thereby improving the quality of services and accommodating more traffic on the railway n etw o r k. Ac hieving this goal is crucial for ensuring thatthe transport sector contributes to decarbonisation.
To guaranteethe high level of coordination needed forsafe operations and efficient use ofthe n etw ork, rail traffic and capacity must be effectively managed by infra structure managers. This is mostly done at the level of national networks. At the same time, cross~border rail services require better coordination across n etw orks than is oft en the case today. To this end, the proposal will set out mechanisms for coordination b etw een national infrastructure managers and others involved in running cross~bordertrain services. The proposal will allow rail infrastructure capacity to be allocated more effectively, by introducing flexibility into the process and giving infrastructure managers a greater role in determining transport needs. For example, infrastructure managers will be able to set aside some capacity for later allocation. This will benefit rail freight services, which cannot always be scheduled enough in advance to fit into the planned annual timetable. The proposal will introduce incentives for both infrastructure managers and railway undertakings to honour capacityrelated commitments and avoid changes at short notice, which would otherwise have negative repercussions for other n etw ork users. The digitalisation of capacityrelated processes will help to make services more efficientand improve their quality. It will also give infra structure managers the tools to be able to deal with unexpected events. The proposal aims to ensure that the process of digitalisation across M ember States is coherent and results in better coordinated rail services across the EU.
# Consistency with existing policy provisions in the policy area
The proposal changes the rules for rail infra structure capacity and traffic management, for monitoring the performance of rail transport, for stakeholder coordination and for the allocation of capacity to rail traffic as part of an intermodal transport chain. It therefore focuses on the rail market and rail operations, regulated by LJirective 2012/34/EU. The proposal addresses a key aspect of rail operations, the planning and allocation of railway infrastructure capaci ty, currently covered by two legal texts, LJirective 2012/34/EU and Regulation (EU) No 913/2010. I t also makes provision for greater coordination of rail services across the EU and for proper regulatory supervision. It is in line with important principles laid down in LJirective 2012/34/EU, such as the independence of rail infrastructure managers, the separation of infrastructure management from the provision of rail transport services, the facilitation of non~discri minatory access to rail infrastructure and rail service
1
facilities, charging for the use of rail infrastructure and monitoring of the rail market, The proposal will repeal and replace Kegulation (EU) No 913/2010 and move relevant capacity management provisions from LJirective 2012/34/EU to the new regulation.
been incorporated into the Commission's proposal for 3, rCv i s e d TEN-T R egulation, published
in 2021.
The proposal complements several aspects of EU rail and EU transport policy. I hese include rail market policy set out in LJirective 2012/34/EU and the Community guidelines on State aid for railway undertakings, transport infrastructure policy based on the TEN-T R egulation, rail interoperability set out in the Interoperability Directive and the relevant technical specifications of interoperability for rail, as well as intermodal transport policy implemented through the Combined Transport Directive and other instruments.
• Consistency with other Union policies
n e u tr a I i ty b y 2050 and the need to reduce transport emissions by 90% b y 2050. It called for stronger measures to incentivise the use of multimodal transport and for a substantial part of the 75% of inland freight carried today by road to be shifted to rail and inland waterways,
of railways...'. The milestones of the Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy included a
50% increase in rail frei g ht traffic by 2030 and a 100% increase by 2050, as well as doubling high_speed passenger traffic by 2030 and tripling it by 2050. The Strategy referred to the need to strengthen cross_border coordination and cooperation b etw een rail infrastructure managers, to better manage the rail network overall, and to use new technologies to boost rail freight. In the Strategy, the Commission announced that it would propose revised rules on rail capacity allocation in line with the ongoing rail sector initiatives. In the Act i on plan to boost long distance and cross_border passenger rail, the Commission set its intentions out in greater detail, announcing that it would work on an initiative to improve capacity allocation and traffic management processes, for better coordination of capacity allocation in the overall rail system, covering both passenger and freight services.
The initiative also contributes to the achievement of Sustainable Development Goal 13 ('Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts') as better capacity management will
spur the development of rail services and make it possible to better ad apt them to customers' needs. This will increase the availability and use of rail as an environmentally friendly mode of transpo rt.
This legislative proposal is part of the Greening Freight Package of proposals covering several modes of transport. The package is a significant deliverable of the Sustainable and Smart \\A o b i I i ty Strategy and part of the 2023 C om mission work programme. Its aim is to advance the decarbonisation offreighttransport, promote intermodal transport and complete the single European railway area. In addition to this proposal, it includes.
— the revision of the Uombined I ransport LJirective [council LJirective 92/106/EEC),
— the revision ofthe We ights and Ui mensions LJirective [council LJirective 96/53/EC),
the Cou ntE m issi ons EU proposal on the harmonisation of emissions accounting in tr a n s p o rt.
2
The measures introduced by this legislative proposal will complement improvements in rail infrastructure capacity envisaged by the proposed revision of the TEN-T R e g u I ati on. I h e revision includes the completion of missing links on the TEN-T rail n etw ork, the accelerated deployment of the Luropean Ran T raff i c M anagement System, and the addition of rail infrastructure requirements for intermodal transport. In parallel, actions to remove barriers to interoperability will continue to be implemented as part of the technical pillar of the single European railway area.
# Lega I basis
The legal basis for the proposal is Art i cle 91 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU). T ransportis a policy of shared competences. I his means that the EU and i ts M ember States are able to legislate and adopt legally binding acts on transport. M ember States exercise their own competence where the EU does not exercise, or has decided not to exercise, its own c o m p ete nee.
# Subsidiarity (for non-exclusive competence)
The EU has already adopted legislation on rail infrastructure capacity management and rail traffic management — LJirective 2012/34/EU establishing a single European railway area (in particular Uhapter IV) and R e g u I at i o n (EU) No 913/2010 on rail freight corridors (in particular Uhapter IV). T his reflects the policy goal of bringing into being a single Luropean railway area, in which railway undertakings are able to provide transport services, including cross"border services, on an increasingly integrated and interoperable n etw ork.
EU action is necessary to remove obstacles in EU legislation that prevent the implementation of sector initiatives to modernise capacity management. Incentives and performance schemes could, in principle, be re~designed nationally, but would lack the scope necessary to tackle cross"border issues. M ore effective international coordination cannot be achieved without clear legal rights and obligations, which need to be harmonised, at least to a certain extent, a c r oss the EU. F inally, if not addressed at EU , evel, the lack of harmonisation/interoperability of digital tools could result in the deployment of divergent, incompatible systems in different M ember States.
EU action will make it possible to put effective and efficient instruments in place to coordinate strategic infrastructure capacity planning, address potential gaps in the mandate of regulatory bodies with regard to cross~border rail traffic, and introduce harmonised rules incentivising the reduction of cancellations of and amend men ts to capaci ty r e q u ests.
# Proportionality
the evaluation of Kegulation (EU) No 913/2010 on Ran F reight Corridors (the RFC
Regulation). These can only be addressed at EU level. The policy options address matters of cross"border coordination for capaci ty and traffic management, infra structure works, and performance schemes that affect cross~border traffic and therefore cannot be addressed nationally or bilaterally, as well as their regulatory oversight. The proposed regulation will strengthen cross~border coordination, both for infra structure managers and for rail regulatory bodies, but it leaves the responsibility for capaci ty allocation with national infra structure managers. M ore radical options, which would have included the centralisation of pa rts of the capacity management process, were discarded in the impact assessment.
3
• Choice of the instrument
The aim of the legislative proposal is to improve the existing rail capacity allocation framework and introduce new rules and procedures on rail infrastructure capacity management and rail traffic management for domestic and international rail services, including crisis management and performance management. To do this, the legislative proposal will repeal the RFC R egulation and the provisions of LJirective 2012/34/EU on the allocation of rail infrastructure capaci ty . Revised rules and procedures governing rail infrastructure capaci ty management and rail traffic management will be introduced in the form of a regulation.
By laying down a harmonised, directly applicable framework for the management of rail infrastructure capacity and rail traffic, a regulation is a better way than a directive of
achieving the initiative's objectives. A regulati on will eliminate the differences in national
rules and practices currently impeding the efficient use of rail infrastructure capaci ty, i n particular on cross~border lines. It will also ensure the uniform implementation of the new measures envisaged in the proposal in the single European railway area. This is especially important and relevant because cross~border rail services (rail freight in particular) suffer from poor reliability, punctuality and predictabili ty.
Ex p ost evaluations/ fitness checks of existing legislation
In 2018, the C ommission produced a report on the application of the RFC R egulation , followed, in 2021 , by an evaluation .
structures, and that managing separately capacity on the rail freight corridors and the rest of the n etw ork is not efficient. Overall, the evaluation concluded that, broadly speaking, the goals of the RFC R egulation have not been achieved.
The evaluation identified four key weaknesses in the RFC R egulation and its application.
Firstly, the use of one~stop shops and prearranged train paths was less than expected. The o n e~ sto p" s h o p approach failed to deliver as it narrowed the focus of coordination to individual corridors rather than the entire rail n etw ork. This meant that freight service operators still needed to interact with individual infrastructure managers if they wanted to secure a train path including pa rts outside corridor lines. Consequently, instead of simplifying the process, one-stop_shops amounted to an additional administrative layer.
Secondly, the RFC R egulation did not address the need to harmonise the tools and procedures used nationally to manage rail infrastructure capaci ty. This would have helped improve the management of infra structure capacity for cross_border rail freight. The RFC R egulation did not mandate the use of specific digital tools, and the application Path Coordination System,
In particular section 3 of Chapter IV or D i recti ve 2012/34/EU.
2 COM(2018) 189 final of 16 April 2018. The report was preceded by a European Court of Auditors'
report (European Court of Auditors, Rail freight transport in the EU . still not on the right track, Opecial Report No 8, Luxembourg, Publications Off ice of the European Union, 2016).
3 SWD(2021) 134 fma, of 2 June 2021.
4
developed by rail stakeholders and introduced to support coordination b etw een applicants for rail infrastructure capacity and the one_stop"shops, provided an incomplete solution.
Thirdly, stakeholders failed to thoroughly monitor the performance of rail freight services in order to develop and implementeffective plans to improve performance. The RFC R e g u I at i o n explicitly introduced performance monitoring as a task for the management boards of freight corridors, but the evaluation showed that a number of importantaspects, such as door~to~door punctuality, were neglected in the monitoring of performance.
Lastly, limited progress was made on improving traffic management and coordination with freight terminals. To load and unload cargo, freight trains need capaci ty at designated facilities called terminals. One major problem is the lack of coordination and alignment b etw een capacity available on the rail n etw ork and the availability of capacity atterminals. To address this, the RFC R egulation introduced an advisory group of terminal operators to the management boards of corridors and mandated the development and implementation of procedures for the coordination of capacity b etw een terminals and the rail n etw ork. However, it seems that terminal operators only had limited influence on the corridor management
boards' decisions. Consequently, coordination with terminals is sub "optimal, resulting in poor
punctuality and reliabili ty of frei g ht trai ns. # Stakeholder consultations
The Commission actively engaged with stakeholders and conducted comprehensive consultations throughout the impact assessment process.
Consultation activities took place in 2022. T hey included.
4
— a consultation on the call for evidence ,
5
— an open public consultation ,
— two focus group meetings, facilitated by external contractors,
— surveys and interviews, facilitated by external contractors,
— tw o events with stakeholders. one with infra structure managers (organised by the Commission through PRIME ) and one with railway undertakings (organised by the Commission through the Railway Undertakings~Dialogue platform ).
Consulted stakeholders included rail infrastructure managers, railway unde rta kings (both passenger and freight), members of the executive and management boards of rail freight
corridors, terminal operators, freight forwarders, representatives of the Member States'
ministries for rail, national rail regulatory bodies, nongovernmental organisations, academics and citizens.
The results of consultation activities were used to assess the overall level of support for the initiative and the relevance of the identified problems the legislative proposal aims to tackle, to assess the relevance of and level of support for the envisaged policy measures, and to
International freight and passenger transport — increasing the share of rail traffic (europa.eu) International freight and passenger transport — increasing the share of rail traffic (europa.eu) Platform of Rail Infra struct ure M anagers in Europe (PRIME) f o r cooperation between infrastructure managers and the Commission services.
A forum f o r rail unde rta kings, involving the Commission services and the European Union Ag e n c y f o r Ra i I wa y s.
5
environ mental impacts.
Responses to the call for evidence and the open public consultation showed that most respondents agree with the identified problems, and there is broad support among stakeholders for the initiative overall.
proposed measures. For example, the stakeholders consul ted overwhelmingly support the introduction of more flexible and more reliable capacity allocation procedures in line with market needs (inspired by the Timetable Redesign for Smart Capacity M anagement project, commonly referred to as the TTR projectj. I hey also support the introduction of measures to encourage the development and use of digital tools for rail infrastructure capacity and traffic management.
Stakeholders' views on the policy options examined in the impact assessment were, however,
which the proposal's objectives are achieved through cooperation between individual
infrastructure managers, whereas many railway undertakings prefer the approach of the policy option in which the coordination of capacity and traffic management is done by a central e n t i ty .
# Collection and use of expertise
study, launched in Uecember 2021, ended in February 2023. It gave the Uom mission valuable insights, notably into how bestto design the policy options and assess their expected impacts, and how to obtain the views of the stakeholders directly affected.
# Impactassessment
This proposal's policy measures are informed by the results of an impact assessment. I he
impact assessment report received a positive opinion from the Commission Regulatory Scrutiny Board . In its opinion, the Board issued some recommendations about how to present the arguments in the impact assessment report. These recommendations have been addressed, Annex 1 to the impact assessment report provides a sum mary outline of how this was done.
policy options have been considered in the context ofthe impact assessment.
Policy option 1 is an evolutionary development of the current legal framework, maintaining the corridor approach to the cross_border coordination of capacity and traffic management as set o ut i n th e RFC R e g u I at i o n .
By contrast, policy options 2, 3 and 4 take a network approach in which the scope of
10
measures for capacity and traffic management goes beyond corridor lines , and introduce more comprehensive harmonisation and modernisation of the rules and procedures for capacity and traffic management. The main difference b etw een these policy options is in the
SWD(2023) 443. SEC(2023) 443.
However, a focus on the most strategic lines will be maintained to avoid overregulation on lines with regional importance and/or lowtraffic density.
6
stringency and ambition of requirements, and the degree of centralisation of the decision-making process.
Policy option 2 relies on voluntary cooperation b etw een infra structure managers, with no or very limited centralised coordination structures at EU , e v e I .
Policy option 3 extends policy option 2, from which it takes over most measures, by entrusting additional responsibilities for harmonisation to coordinating bodies at EU level, making use, to the largest extent possible, of existing entities.
Policy option 4 extends the remit of the coordinating body introduced in policy option 3 by adding operational and decision~making tasks, such as the competence to take final decisions in the case of disagreement/ non~alignment b etw een infrastructure managers, and the setting
up of a European traffic management function for the management of major incidents ('crisis cell').
The assessment identifies policy option 3 as the preferred option as it strikes the best balance b etw een the objectives to be achieved, the degree of proportionality of the intervention, its costs and benefits and the credibility ofthe assessment of impacts.
By introducing a harmonised, directly applicable framework for the management of railway infrastructure and traffic, the legislative proposal will contribute to achieving the general objective of accommodating larger amounts of traffic on the rail n etw ork, for the benefit of both passenger and freight rail customers. The additional capacity resulting from the proposal is expected to increase railway traffic (expressed in train km) by 4%, representing nearly 250 million train km of additional capacity. In monetary terms, it is estimated that this additional capacity will generate an economic value of EUR 2 500 million for railway undertakings. Tor final consumers, the additional capacity resulting from this legislative proposal means passengers will benefit from more connections and higher service frequencies for existing connections. Likewise, in the freight segment, shippers will benefit from more choice. The proposal will also make the capacity allocation process more efficient by introducing measures to improve the stability of allocated train paths, generating cost savings of about EUR 420 million for railway undertakings and of a similar amount for infrastructure managers. The proposal will also improve the cross_border coordination of temporary
also expected to lead to improvements in punctuality, resulting in an estimated economic gain for railway undertakings of EUR 658 million. Increased reliability and punctuality will make rail freight services more attractive to freight forwarders, which will help increase the competitiveness of rail freight vis_a_vis road transport. Likewise, passengers will benefit from fewer cancellations and improved punctuali ty. Together with the expected increase in available connections, these benefits will help improve the competitiveness of rail transport vis~a~vis air transport in the passenger segment, particularly on cross_border routes where the introduction of a harmonised framework for capacity and traffic management should deliver significant added value. Finally, the proposal is also expected to lead to administrative cost savings for national public authorities thanks to the implementation of a harmonised legal framework for railway capacity and traffic management and to the phasing out of rail freight corridors. I hose savings are estimated at EUR2.6 million, expressed in current values, over the 2025-2050 period.
The legislative proposal is also expected to have a positive impact on employment in the railway sector (estimated at around 42 000 additional Jobs a year on average relative to the
7
baselinej, from the increase in available infrastructure capacity and the associated increase in rail traffic the measures are expected to create.
Finally, it is expected that the legislative proposal will have modest but positive climate and environmental impacts (estimates predict that the preferred option will lead to a decrease in COI emissions of about 26 million tonnes over the 2025-2050 per iod compared to the b a s e I i n e) .
# Regulatory fitness and simplification
This legislative proposal has a significant regulatory fitness aspect as it is intended to streamline and update the rules for the management of rail infrastructure capacity in order to better serve the needs of different rail market segments, in particular cross_border freight, The proposal will replace the existing legal framework for rail infrastructure capacity and traffic management in the RFC R egulation and in pa rts of LJirective 2012/34/EU, w ith a single, directly applicable framework for the whole EU n etw o r k .
The preferred policy option is expected to save public authorities administrative co sts than k s to the implementation of a harmonised legal framework for railway capacity and traffic management and the abolition of rail freight corridors, estimated at EUR 2.6 million, relative to the baseline and expressed in current values over the 2025-2050 penod. T he initiative will s i m p I i f y matters for applicants for capacity involved in cross_border rail services by making capacity allocation more efficient. It will also reduce administrative costs for infrastructure managers by an estimated amount of EUR8.2 million, relative to the baseline and expressed in current values over 2025-2050.
# Fundamental rights
The proposal has no effectonthe protection offundamental rights.
Contents
- BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS
- Aspects of transport infrastructure planning that Regulation (EU) No 913/2010 covers have
- The European Green Deal Communication confirmed the EU's goal of achieving climate
- recognising that this '...will require measures to manage b etter, and to increase the capacity
- The initiative also contributes to the achievement of Sustainable Development Goal 13 ('Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts') as better capacity management will
- 2. LEGAL BASIS, SUBSIDIARITY AND PROPORTIONALITY
- The intervention addresses the shortcomings in EU capac ity management rules, identified in
- By laying down a harmonised, directly applicable framework for the management of rail infrastructure capacity and rail traffic, a regulation is a better way than a directive of
- 3. RESULTS OF EX POST EVALUATIONS, STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS AND IMPACT ASSESSMENTS
- The general conclusions of the evaluation are that limited use has been made of the corridors'
- Consulted stakeholders included rail infrastructure managers, railway unde rta kings (both passenger and freight), members of the executive and management boards of rail freight
- provide additional expert input for the assessment of the measures' economic, social and
- Overall, the stakeholders consulted also gave a positive assessment of the initiative's
- more varied, with most infrastructure managers preferring the approach of the policy option in
- A study was done by an external contractor to support the proposal's impact assessment. The
- Four
- capacity restrictions, making rail transport more reliable. The proposal's various measures are
- The legislative proposal is also expected to have a positive impact on employment in the railway sector (estimated at around 42 000 additional Jobs a year on average relative to the
- Third, the legislative proposal entails the creation of an independent group of rail experts to
- 5. OTHERELEMENTS
- These performance indicators will be developed to monitor the effects of the proposal's
- Chapter I contains general provisions. It describes the subject matter of the proposed Regulation, which lays down rules to allow rail infrastructure capacity and rail traffic to be
- Chapter II sets out the general rules for capacity management, section 1, on
The preferred option will have budgetary implications for the Commission.
The proposed regulation on the use of railway infrastructure capacity in the single European railway area is accompanied by three complementary coordination activities for which the Commission will provide co_funding.
First, EU co_funding will be provided to support the coordination of infrastructure managers by the N etw ork Coordinator. The legislative proposal also requires individual infra structure
managers to provide co- funding support for the Network Coordinator's activities.
Second, the Commission will provide co_funding supportto help set up a secretariatforthe cooperation of national regulatory bodies, who are also required to provide the secretariat with co_funding.
advise the European Commission, the Performance Review Body, whose task will be to
review the performance of rail infra structure and transport services. The Commission will provide funding to cover the full co sts to the members of the Performance Review Body of participating in it.
A budget of EUR 5.5 million is earmarked annually for these three coordination activities.
8
# Implementation plans and monitoring, evaluation and reporting arrangements
The Commission services will monitor the implementation and effectiveness of this proposal through a number of actions and indicators to measure the progress made towards achieving operational objectives. These indicators and operational objectives will be developed on the
basis of the Performance Review Body's advice. Data will be provided by the European
n etw ork of infra structure managers, in particular the operational body that suppo rts i ts work (the N etw ork Coordinator), which will also participate in defining operational objectives.
The Commission also expects to receive data and analysis on rail market developments and implementation from the Luropean IN etw ork of Ran R egulatory Bodies.
measures. Mowever, it is expected that they may also reflect certain synergies with other EU transport proposals and policies such as the proposal on the revision of the TEN-T R e g u I ati o n .
The proposal will provide the legal basis for the development of more detailed rules, procedures and templates, to be set out in non~legislative acts. The implementation period mu st therefore also cover the entry into force of the non~legislative acts stemming from the proposal. The Commission will carry out an evaluation five years after the end of the
implementation period to verify to what extent the initiative's objectives have been achieved.
# Explanatory documents (for directives) N ot applicable.
# Detailed explanation of the specific provisions of the proposal
Chapter I contains general provisions. It describes the subject matter of the proposed Regulation, which lays down rules to allow rail infrastructure capacity and rail traffic to be
managed in a way that optimises the network's use, thereby improving the quality of services
and accommodating larger amounts of traffic. It sets out the scope of the proposed Regulation. It also establishes the general responsibilities of rail infrastructure managers and the principles they must abide by in exercising their functions, and gives definitions that are importantforthe proposed Regulation.
general principles,
establishes the three stages of the capacity planning and allocation process, strategic capacity planning (addressed in more detail in section 2 of Chapter II), scheduling and allocation of capacity (section 3), and adaptation and rescheduling of capacity (section 4). The chapter contains obligations on infrastructure managers to Jointly develop a European framework for capacity management. Specific provisions address the management of scarce infra structure capacity and of capacity restrictions resulting from work on infrastructure and degraded i nfrastructure.
Chapter III introduces obligations concerning traffic management, disruption management and crisis management and requires infra structure managers to Jointly develop a European framework for cross~border coordination on these issues. Specific provisions ensure that in a crisis, M ember States can apply emergency measures for the management of rail capacity and traff i c.
9
Chapter IV introduces a performance review framework. I o improve the performance of rail infrastructure services in the EU, the E uropean N etw ork of Infrastructure M a n a g e rs (ENIM) is given the task of monitoring different aspects of performance and producing annual public r e p o rts on performance. A newly created Performance Review Body will give advice and recommendations on performance~related matters.
C h a pte r V contains provisions on the organisational structure for coordination b etw een i nfrastructure m anagers. ENIM, established under LJirective 2012/34/EU, is strengthened and will be supported by a N etw ork Coordinator and designated focal points for infrastructure managers. The chapter also contains rules on the digitalisation of capacity management.
Chapter VI contains provisions on the regulatory oversight of capacity and traffic management, expanding the tasks and responsibilities of the European N etw ork of Rail Regulatory Bodies (the ENRRB) with respect to EU and cross_border matters. I o this end, the ENRRB will have a Board of Regulatory Bodies as a decision~making body and a Secretariat supporting the Board.
Chapter VI I contains final provisions covering delegated acts and the future evaluation of the Regulation. 11 c o nta i n s a m e n d m e nts to Directive 2012/34/EU and repeals the RFC R e g u I at i o n and specific articles of LJirective 2012/34/EU that the new Kegulation replaces. I ransitional measures are envisaged to ensure smooth migration to the new legal framework.
10