The Future – the “Roadmap” SIMPLIFICATION

The Road Map 2 TSI in Place Hi Speed Conv Loc & pass Off TENS TSI Conformity New Vehicles Networks Open pointsUpdates Interoperability Mutual recognition Bi & Multilat XA agrts The list of Parameters The Reference Document Mutual Regn Of Veh Types ~2040 ~2080 Recheck Only against rules Relating to compatibility with the Networks Existing Vehicles Inf Register / Net Statement

Simplification – One Process 3 25 x National Homologation Processes + 25 x Different Interpretations of the Directive DV 29 Process

Requirements Law by Parliament National Regulations Formal Agreements between MS MOUs Requirements Issued by Ministries “Guidelines” issued by Ministries Requirements Issued by NSAs “Guidelines” issued by NSAs Requirements issued by IMs “Access Conditions” Issued by IMs Judgement of Independent Safety Assessors Judgements of NSA Inspectors Judgement of RU or IM Project risk assessment TSI National Rules Simplification -“Cleaning Up” the rules N° 4 TSI Checks NoBo Designated body National Safety Authority Independent Safety Assessor “Competent person” specified by NSA NoBo Designated Body CSM Assessor NoBo Authorisation NSA IM NSAs NSA -1! Foreseen by the directive Short term Long term Now = All requirements (inc interface to the network) One entity may fill all Roles Deadline – 12 months from publishing the Ref Doc Decision

5 Rule setter (Ministry on NSA advice) 3 rd party Checking Body (NoBo or DeBo) Authorising Authority (NSA) Transparency Simplification - Transparency Judgement of “wise” expert in NSA/IM Requirements Checking method Authorisation From expert Judgement (single point of decision) (Safety Case) (“approved” by ISA based on “judgement”) 3rd party verification of conformity to transparent, repeatable rules

Simplification – Prevention of “Surprise” new rules Creation of New Rules TSI Loc & Pass in place – no need for new national rules – scope extension is on the way Draft national rules must be notified and scrutinised under Directive 98/34 – up to 12month “standstill” Dealing with findings of accidents- “Emergency Rules” Safety Directive is clear – Immediate risk must be controlled by the SMS of the RU – i.e. company procedures Errors and omissions in TSIS dealt with by reporting to RISC + Agency Technical Opinion (one new rule for all) Rules must be permanent (not different for each project) Result - No more “surprise” new rules Rules notified and collated against the list of parameters One Point of Entry for rules Database 6

Simplification - Equivalence 25 Fire Extinguishers in the cab => 1 Geographical Interest Groups reviewing equivalence for All MS (except Poland, UK, Baltic states) For Off -TENs MSs may decide to accept TSIs as equivalent to national rules A logical simplification Extra column in Ref Doc to be added 7

Simplification – Visibility of National Rules One point of data entry and extraction The Agency Website (incl access to NOTIFIT) Rules catalogued according to the list of parameters Rules cross referenced with TSIs Clarity of what must be notified to be contained in Application guide to NOTIFIT/Ref Doc Database 8

Simplification – Type Authorisation Vehicle authorised in MS A = Type Approved in MS A Vehicle authorised in MS B (check of B and C rules relating only to compatibility with the Network) = Type authorised in MS B 9

Simplification Separation of authorisation from use + type Only one authorisation per MS per design Authorisation for a network according to national rules for compatibility/integration with network. Route non-conformities dealt with by Network Statement /RINF + SMS 10

Anything Missing?

Anything Missing (1)? Next Step – check for missing regulatory simplifications Practical definition of Type Common understanding of “major” / “significant” /”substantial” How to deal with “platforms” Anything else? 12

Anything missing (2)? Technical compatibility/Safe Integration veh- network Consistency (one set?) of parameters need to used in TSI, Ref Doc, Infrastructure Register (+ERATV,+Inf TSI) Review of risks covered by national rules, compare with risks covered by TSI Anything else? 13

Anything Missing (3) Nature of Infrastructure IMs must be maintaining infrastructure to some limits otherwise vehicles could not be authorised, compatibility with vehicles could not be maintained and the IMs would loose their safety authorisations! Conclusion – Infrastructure knowledge exists but is “hidden” Agree with EIM – rapid introduction of RINF for compatibility parameters is necessary 14

Next Steps Publish this “road map” Opinion Formers (“Big Bosses”) need to know what is already in the pipeline Which of today’s problems are solved by implementation of the directives What is left as open points Dissemination of the framework 15

Finally – A Plea for “Big Bosses” and Associations The tools to implement change exist – use them Stop writing letters of general complaint Start submitting specific complaints to the Commission where MSs break the law (i.e. do not comply with the directives / DV29) Why ask for more regulation when existing regulation is not complied with? 16

Anything Else? Comments and Questions 17