NSR Dissemination workshop regarding

Information session about NSR (1)

Caroline FISCHER, Safety Unit

Maribor, 3 December 2014

Structure

1. Background

2. NSR in EU legal framework

3. Processes and roles

4. Summary

2

Railway Safety Directive 2004/49/EC (RSD)

Objectives

At least maintain safety level

Increase it when reasonable

Promote competitiveness

And competition

Develop interoperability

And limit barriers

Create mutual trust

Any safety measure shall foster the

development of a single European rail

transport system

ERA strategic priorities

Harmonised Safety

Regulatory Framework

Simplified Vehicle

Authorisation

Single EU train control

system

Simplified system access

or EU customers

ERA strategic priorities

Moni-toring

Facili-tating

Deve-loping

Harmonised safety regulatory framework

Simplified vehicle authorisation

Single EU train control system (ERTMS)

Simplified system access for EU customers

Essential to make our strategic priorities

work:

- Increasing monitoring and facilitating

- Make legal framework working

- Strengthen collaboration

- Prepare migration to the single RU safety certificate

2010 - ERA reports on how NSR are published and made available in MS

Recommendation to EC to establish NSR Task Force

2013 – Transparency Survey (NSAs) and Barometer (sector)

Follow-up on key transparency indicators

Jan. 2013 - Final Report of the EC NSR Task Force

Common understanding of RSD requirements and NSR scope

Notif-IT flowcharts and other good practices

2013-2016 – Dissemination of Task Force results

Direct information to key managers and users involved with NSR

Customised counselling helping MS to check their status and adjust priorities

Management of National Safety Rules (NSR)

5

NSR in EU legal framework: Actors

Following the EU policy for market opening responsiblity for railway safety is no longer concentrated on one incumbent Railway Undertaking but on many actors. This change provides a share of responsibity among different actors and a change of the safety regulatory framework.

Railway Actors:

• Member States, National Safety Authorities and National Investigation Bodies,

• Railway Undertakings, Infrastructure Managers,

• Entities in Charge of Maintenance, Notified Bodies, Assessment Bodies, ECM Certification bodies.

In order to keep railway operation safe the roles, responsibilities

6

NSR in EU legal framework: Methods and Outcome

In order to keep railway operation safe the applied methods and outcomes changed:

Different Methods:

• Common Safety Methods, Common Safety Indicators, Common Safety Targets,

• Safety Management System,

• System should encourage the right behaviours: fault sharing, strong and ongoing relationships, good and open communication,

• Remove barriers to safety culture, set incentives, set appropriate structures for rule-making,

• Balance between rules and system-based approach – understand where rules add value and why,

Different Outcome:

• Safety Certificates, Safety Authorisations, Authorisations for Placing into Service, ECM Certificates.

7

Safety Management System (SMS)

› SMS, Responsibility Vs. Liability

• Better management is good for business and safety – freedom and flexibility

• Responsibility for risks should sit with those best able to control them

• Liability for costs may be different

› RUs, IMs and ECMs

• Greater freedom = greater responsibility

• Senior team and safety culture

• Understanding, control and monitoring of the key risks of their operations.

› Monitoring keepers, subcontractors and suppliers

• Area of responsibility

• Managing interfaces

• How to: manage performance, cope with commercial pressures and incentives, secure information and feedback, specify and anticipate needs.

8

NSAs and MS

› NSAs

• Where does the NSA add value?

• What does the safety certificate tell you?

• Balance between certification / authorisation and supervision

• What NSAs are and are NOT responsible for – national safety outcomes, not blame for individual safety failures

• Regulatory framework (unique system view and oversight of interface risks)

• Enforcement is important, but other tools - education / guidance / economic incentives / commercial liability / civil liability

• Types of competence – right level of technical know-how. Management systems expertise.

› Member States (MS)

• Setting the framework, clear messages, respecting independence.

9

Past

10

Organisation by SMS

GAPS

GAPS

Approach in the Railway Safety Directive

Same approach to justify any Rule: EU National International Standards SMS rules and working instructions

11

WHY ?

HOW ?

WHAT ?

Status 2004: Few TSIs, no CSMs/CSTs

NSR objective 2004: Need to establish and notify NSR

Move from self- to public regulation

Transparency & level-playing field

Define roles and interfaces

Transitional solution → Keep new NSR to a minimum

Status 2014: Complete CSMs & CSTs

Almost complete TSIs

NSR objective 2014: Reduce and Revise NSR

Less rules but optimised

Old rules may give input for future risk assessments (SMS)

Objective for NSR

12

NSR definition, status and rationale

› Rules for RUs, including their interfaces with IMs

› Rules issued by any competent party When MS gives them legal status and binding character for RUs

› Rules for the whole railway system in MS or on some parts Within the scope of RSD transposition into national law

› Rules containing railway-specific safety requirements: › Limited to exceptions allowed by common EU rules, e.g.

Open points & specific cases in TSIs

Confirmed deficiencies in EU legislation

› Not more prescriptive than necessary to meet the safety objective

Not NSR: › Measures implementing EU law and EU agreements

› Rule Management Tool provides other examples of non-NSR

13

Common rules (OPE TSIs, CSTs, CSMs, etc.) with some exceptions and

Coordinated interfaces and company (operating) rules

Information

Rule book

Route book

RU SMS IM SMS

Current situation: ??????????????????????????????????

In transitional period: NSR for these exceptions

Present day situation

14

Rule Management Tool

15

Rule Management Tool v. 1.0 (10/2012) Final Report of the NSR TF, Annex 3

ERA website / Key documents

RMT – common basis for decisions

Check rule status with RMT:

Is that (draft) rule NSR?

Is it allowed under EU law?

If yes, for what scope?

If not, what EU law applies?

If not NSR – what is it?

Take related decisions:

Room for rule drafting

Need for rule revision

Rule cleaning & transition

Status of non-NSR

Clarification of publications

Need for notification

Which procedure(s)?

16

Intended use

Final decision on rules and actions shall also consider

general principles and procedures

described in the Final Report of the NSR Task Force

RMT is the first filter for rules: • Indicates room for rules • Focuses the analysis of EU and national law • Suggests conclusions and actions

17

Complex area = multiple filter

• Several RMT lines may co-apply, e.g. for TDG

• When TDG rule includes NSR = treated as NSR

RMT example 1

Number Type Task / responsibility / parameter

Requirements covered by common rules (ref. to TSIs, CST, CSM, etc.)

38

Please indicate in notification

Type-4 rule (NSR)

Identification of trains/ train running numbers Some tasks may be covered by several lines, e.g. transport of dangerous goods

OPE CR TSI 4.2.3.2

Kinds of NSR to be withdrawn

Kinds of existing NSR that may remain Remaining NSR may need revision in line with EU law

Comments

No room for NSR No room = no rule

Specific case for IE and UK: CR OPE TSI 7.3.2.2

Same requirement is in the merged OPE TSI as in CR OPE TSI (Decision 2012/756/EU)

18

RMT example 2

In this example some room for NSR is allowed under TDG law

It needs to be further checked against non-TDG examples in RMT

19

RMT example 2 (2)

For example, related provisions could be:

No room for NSR in these areas, unless authorised through TSI deficiency procedure and RSD procedure for draft NSR

20

Reduction of NSR under RSD (2013)

›National Rules covered by EU law shall be cancelled, without prejudice to transition schedules defined in EU legislation

Group of rules Covered by CSMs and SMS

Covered by OPE TSIs

Covered by other EU law

Scope for National Rules

National safety methods and targets

Y _ Y Risk acceptance criteria Criteria for significant change

RU safety certification and SMS

Y _ _ Criteria for significant change

Operation, signalling and traffic control

Y Y Y Rules under OPE TSIs, Dir. 2008/68/EC and RID (transport of dangerous goods)

Requirements for internal rules

Y Y _ _

Staff competences, fitness and selection

Y Y Y _

Accident and incident investigation

Y _ Y _

Which NSR may remain in Estonia?

These NSR may remain until covered by EU legislation

› Specific case for freight train rear end for Baltic States in OPE TSI

› Open points in Appendix B of OPE TSI (reduced soon)

› Limits of alcohol (staff fitness before journey)

› Traffic management and signalling rules for legacy control command and signalling systems (level of details shall be aligned with SMS)

› NSR covered by transitional provisions in EU law (e.g. train drivers)

› Transport of dangerous goods - TDG to / from OSJD countries (Dir. 2008/68/EC, Annex II.2, p. 8)

› Other TDG rules as identified in the Rule Management Tool

22

Rationale for remaining NSR

›Make sure the rule is the best option for identified problem

›Purpose for rules: When “everybody should do the same” for

› Interoperability

› Preventing diversity of legacy systems

› RU/IM interface

› Consistency of the designed risk control measures

›Requirements for rules:

– Fully proportional to safety objective

– Respecting safety responsibilities and EU law

– Non-prescriptive/non-detailed;

– Open for >1 solution

– Non-discriminatory

Essential: Continuos

dialogue Monitoring Consultation

23

Simple rules: danger or benefit?

General CSMs and TSIs allow general (not detailed) National Rules

Simpler rules is a benefit!

Improve and simplify the system Not necessarily change it Focus on essential Support to interoperability Understandable Promote risk prevention Open for viable solutions Adapted to any activity

Training Easier Supervision Monitoring

Increased safety

Competitiveness

24

YES, RUs and IMs can manage it !

• Not NSR but application ensures safety - SMS

• Clear reason behind a rule → solution

• Information & consultation → shared objective

• Adapted to activity profile → fulfilled

Application

• Historic knowledge is shared (old NSR)

• RUs/IMs shall maintain competence

• NSA guidelines/advice

• External expertise when needed

Competence

• Clear and realistic planning

• Reflect and promote safety maturity

• Step-wise progress with revising NSRs based on international rules for 1520 mm gauge

Transition

25

Questions?

26