Experience of a GIG - 17/11/2010 Experience of a GIG: Mutual recognition in practice.

Experience of a GIG - 17/11/2010

Experience of a GIG:Mutual recognition

in practice


Introduction

France pioneered to set up XA agreements, together with Germany, then with most of its neighbours.The French NSA is glad to share in its experience in setting-up and day-to-day practice of these agreements.


Contents

Agreements of EPSF and other NSAsHow everything startedBasic principles of mutual recognitionContent of an agreementHow it works day-to-day


Agreements signed by EPSF with other NSAs

France GermanyBelgium Netherlands France Luxemburg Switzerland (BeNeFLuCh)France SpainFrance Italy


How everything started

Scarce workforceDoing again a check somebody else already performed is a waste of time.

TrustRailway traffic is not less safe abroad, therefore we can trust in foreign safety authorities (provided their regulation and technical scopes remain identical).


Basic principles of mutual recognition

XA agreements do not supersede national regulations:

Each NSA sticks to the authorisation procedure in force in its country.Authorisation procedures were set by law.NSAs are not empowered to change them.


Basic principles of mutual recognition

XA agreements do not supersede national regulationsNSAs agree to use a common checklist in which items are rated A, B or C

NSAs compare their respective national rules and set the classificationProofs of conformity to a “A-rated” rule can be replaced by a conformity attestation from the NSA which granted the first authorisation

For items rated “A” for which the applicant want to use the agreement, NSA “Y” asks to NSA “X” attestations of conformity to the cross-accepted rules.It is not necessary for NSA “X” to transmit the original conformity proofs nor to translate the documents.An NSA “Y” cannot provide to a 3rd NSA a conformity attestation obtained from another NSA.


Memorandum Of UnderstandingEBA-EPSFBeNeFLuCh

Technical AnnexApplication Guide

Content of an agreement

http://www.securite-ferroviaire.fr/fr/modules/cms/fichiers/124/Fichier_315.pdf

http://www.securite-ferroviaire.fr/fr/modules/cms/fichiers/181/Protocole%20rec%20mut%20EPSF%20SSICF%20DGR%20IVW%20voy%20loc%20signe.pdf


Chapters of a Memorandum Of Understanding

Introduction (agencies involved)1. Scope (which rolling stock is targeted) 2. Principle (use of a common check-list)3. Classification in categories (A, B, C)4. Dealing with A-rated items5. Authorisation procedure6. Summary of the technical items7. Possible extension to new members


Technical Annex

The Main Tool: Technical Annex Structure changed from EBA Check-List to

Decision 2009-965 CE Technical rules are split in

rules for HS RST rules for CR RST rules for new rolling stock rules which were used for “old” rolling stock (i.e.:

put in service before the creation of NSAs or before the agreement or before the TSIs)


Technical Annex

The Main Tool: Technical Annex Contents as many classification columns as pairs of

NSAs. An item may be rated differently depending on:

the couple of country considered (e.g. A between X and Y but C between X and Z)

the way the rules are considered (e.g. A from X to Y but C from Y to X).

For certain items, only the assessment method can be cross accepted, while the resulting data has to be matched to national specifications. Thus the conformity attestation should mention the data itself (e.g. gauge B1, brakeweight)


Application Guide

Application Guide1. Case of a vehicle already authorised in a country “X” and for

which an authorisation in a country “Y” is wished For “old” rolling stock NSA “X” can base on a sufficient return of

experience to validate the conformity of certain items2. Case of a vehicle already authorised in a country “X”, then in a

country “Y”, and for which an authorisation in a country “Z” is wished

NSA “Y” can’t make attestations of conformity to NSA “Z” based on attestations granted by NSA “Y”

3. Case of a vehicle derived from (or using subparts of) a vehicle already authorised in at least one country “X”

4. Case of a vehicle new for several countriesAnnex 1: Model of Attestation of ConformityAnnex 2: Summary of the technical items with classification and

mention of the possibility for using Return of Experience


How it works day-to-day

Technical Workgroupssetup the technical annex (common checklist)rate each item (A, B or C)when necessary, refine the classification and update the table of rule references

Services in charge of authorisationsprovide Attestations of Conformity on requestask Attestation of Conformity when needed


ExamplesVehicles which authorisation in France is based on attestations of conformity granted by other NSAs

From EBAICE3 MFTRAXX F140 MSVT643JT42CWR M-100 (Class 77)Euro 4000 type IIJT42CWR type 660 CA (Class 66)

From BAV (expected)FLIRT


ExamplesVehicles for which the EPSF sent attestations to other NSAs

To EBATGV POSBB 475100

To SSICFAGC bi-bi

To IVWTGV PBKA

To Ministerio del FomentoTGV DASYE F


Conclusion

Mutual recognition:Favours a better understanding of each other’s technical rules and reasons why they were put in forceSimplifies the manufacturers’ job, as they can go on with their technical habitsReduces the time spent on authorisation files either by demanders and by NSAsPreserves the level of safety and interoperability


Acknowledgements

Mr. Gilles DalmasMr. André SonneyOur colleagues from partner NSAsSupporting experts from the railway sector


Any questions?

See article in RGCF issue June 2010


Thank you for your attention

Experience of a GIG - 17/11/2010 Experience of a GIG: Mutual recognition in practice.

Documents

return of experience

conformity annex

technical items

conformity attestation

attestation of conformity

daytoday slide

country x

country y