Presentation on theme: "Experience of a GIG - 17/11/2010 Experience of a GIG: Mutual recognition in practice."— Presentation transcript:
Experience of a GIG - 17/11/2010 Experience of a GIG: Mutual recognition in practice
Experience of a GIG - 17/11/2010 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.
Experience of a GIG - 17/11/2010 Contents Agreements of EPSF and other NSAs How everything started Basic principles of mutual recognition Content of an agreement How it works day-to-day
Experience of a GIG - 17/11/2010 Agreements signed by EPSF with other NSAs France Germany Belgium Netherlands France Luxemburg Switzerland (BeNeFLuCh) France Spain France Italy
Experience of a GIG - 17/11/2010 How everything started Scarce workforce Doing again a check somebody else already performed is a waste of time. Trust Railway traffic is not less safe abroad, therefore we can trust in foreign safety authorities (provided their regulation and technical scopes remain identical).
Experience of a GIG - 17/11/2010 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.
Experience of a GIG - 17/11/2010 Basic principles of mutual recognition XA agreements do not supersede national regulations NSAs agree to use a common checklist in which items are rated A, B or C NSAs compare their respective national rules and set the classification Proofs 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.
Experience of a GIG - 17/11/2010 Memorandum Of Understanding EBA-EPSF BeNeFLuCh Technical Annex Application Guide Content of an agreement
Experience of a GIG - 17/11/2010 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 items 5.Authorisation procedure 6.Summary of the technical items 7.Possible extension to new members
Experience of a GIG - 17/11/2010 Technical Annex The Main Tool: Technical AnnexTechnical Annex Structure changed from EBA Check-List to Decision 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)
Experience of a GIG - 17/11/2010 Technical Annex The Main Tool: Technical AnnexTechnical 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)
Experience of a GIG - 17/11/2010 Application Guide 1.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 items 2.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 cant 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 countries Annex 1: Model of Attestation of ConformityModel of Attestation of Conformity Annex 2: Summary of the technical items with classification and mention of the possibility for using Return of Experience
Experience of a GIG - 17/11/2010 How it works day-to-day Technical Workgroups setup 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 authorisations provide Attestations of Conformity on request ask Attestation of Conformity when needed
Experience of a GIG - 17/11/2010 Examples Vehicles which authorisation in France is based on attestations of conformity granted by other NSAs From EBA ICE3 MF TRAXX F140 MS VT643 JT42CWR M-100 (Class 77) Euro 4000 type II JT42CWR type 660 CA (Class 66) From BAV (expected) FLIRT
Experience of a GIG - 17/11/2010 Examples Vehicles for which the EPSF sent attestations to other NSAs To EBA TGV POS BB To SSICF AGC bi-bi To IVW TGV PBKA To Ministerio del Fomento TGV DASYE F
Experience of a GIG - 17/11/2010 Conclusion Mutual recognition: Favours a better understanding of each others technical rules and reasons why they were put in force Simplifies the manufacturers job, as they can go on with their technical habits Reduces the time spent on authorisation files either by demanders and by NSAs Preserves the level of safety and interoperability
Experience of a GIG - 17/11/2010 Acknowledgements Mr. Gilles Dalmas Mr. André Sonney Our colleagues from partner NSAs Supporting experts from the railway sector
Experience of a GIG - 17/11/2010 Any questions? See article in RGCF issue June 2010
Experience of a GIG - 17/11/2010 Thank you for your attention