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
Content of an agreement
Memorandum Of Understanding
EBA-EPSF
BeNeFLuCh
Technical Annex
Application Guide
Experience of a GIG - 17/11/2010
Chapters of a Memorandum Of
Understanding
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Introduction (agencies involved)
Scope (which rolling stock is targeted)
Principle (use of a common check-list)
Classification in categories (A, B, C)
Dealing with A-rated items
Authorisation procedure
Summary of the technical items
Possible extension to new members
Experience of a GIG - 17/11/2010
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)
Experience of a GIG - 17/11/2010
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)
Experience of a GIG - 17/11/2010
Application Guide
 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” 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 countries
Annex 1: Model 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 475100
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 other’s
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
Experience of a GIG - 17/11/2010