european railway agency risc task force on … 12 - tf on single... · european railway agency risc...

PROGRAMME PLAN No. ERA-PRO-001\PPL V0.7

of 17

EUROPEAN RAILWAY AGENCY

RISC Task Force on Single Safety Certificate

PROGRAMME PLAN

Document ID: ERA-PRO-001\PPL

Document type: Programme Plan Classification:

Origin: ERA Activity Based Item: 4.4 ERA WP 2013 1.1 ERA WP 2014 (draft)

Unit: Safety Sector: Supervision and Investigation

Elaborated by Validated by Approved by

Name Delsoir Hugues Michael Rebentisch Christopher Carr

Position Programme Coordinator Sponsor Requester

Date

Signature

Document history

Version Date Comments

0.1 31.07.2013 Draft for review

0.2 05.08.2013 Draft reviewed after MR and KD comments

0.3 08.08.2013 Draft after internal Review

0.4 04.09.2013 Draft after internal Review

0.5 06.09.2013 Incl. 1st

level planning, updated references to ERA WP 2014

0.6 07.01.2014 Comments from MS included

0.7 13.01.2014 Section 3.2. point 2 Remark


of 17

1. CONTENTS

1. CONTENTS ..................................................................................................... 2

1.1. List of Figures .................................................................................................. 2

1.2. List of Tables ................................................................................................... 2

2. REFERENCES, DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS ............................................. 3

2.1. Reference Documents ...................................................................................... 3

2.2. Definitions and Abbreviations ........................................................................... 4

2.2.1. Standard Terms and Abbreviations ............................................................................. 4 2.2.2. Specific Terms and Abbreviations ............................................................................... 4

3. PROGRAMME DEFINITION .............................................................................. 5

3.1. Purpose .......................................................................................................... 5

3.2. Scope ............................................................................................................. 6

3.3. Objectives ...................................................................................................... 8

3.4. Customer ....................................................................................................... 9

3.5. Deliverables .................................................................................................... 9

4. ORGANISATION ........................................................................................... 11

4.1. RISC Task Force ............................................................................................. 11

4.2. Steering Committee ....................................................................................... 11

4.3. Other Stakeholder(s) ..................................................................................... 11

4.4. Roles and Responsibilities .............................................................................. 12

4.5. Structure ...................................................................................................... 13

4.6. Monitoring and control .................................................................................. 14

4.7. Communication Plan ...................................................................................... 15

5. PROGRAMME TIME PLAN ............................................................................. 16

6. PROGRAMME RISKS ..................................................................................... 17

1.1. List of Figures Figure 1: Programme structure. ....................................................................................................... 14 Figure 2: Programme schedule (GANTT) .......................................................................................... 16

1.2. List of Tables Table 1 : Table of Reference Documents ............................................................................................ 3 Table 2 : Table of Terms ................................................................................................................... 4 Table 3 : Table of Abbreviations ........................................................................................................ 4 Table 4 : Programme deliverables ..................................................................................................... 9 Table 5 : Examples of competencies expected for the Task Force on SSC ............................................. 11 Table 6 : Communication plan ......................................................................................................... 15 Table 7 : Programme risks .............................................................................................................. 17


of 17

2. REFERENCES, DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS

2.1. Reference Documents

Table 1 : Table of Reference Documents

[Ref. N°] Title Reference Version

[1] DIRECTIVE 2004/49/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 29 April 2004 on safety on the Community's railways and (Railway Safety Directive) (OJ L 164, 30.4.2004, p. 44)

2004/49/EC

[2] Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on railway safety (Recast)

2013/0016 (COD)

[3] Final Report to the European Commission on THE DEVELOPMENT OF A MIGRATION STRATEGY TOWARDS A SINGLE SAFETY CERTIFICATE (Article 10 (7) of Directive 2004/49/EC)

ERA/REP/01/2011 14.02.2011

[4] COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1158/2010 on a common safety method for assessing conformity with the requirements for obtaining railway safety certificates (OJ L 326, 10.12.2010, p. 11)

1158/2010

[5] COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1077/2012 on a common safety method for supervision by national safety authorities after issuing a safety certificate or safety authorisation (OJ L 320, 17.11.2012, p. 3)

1077/2012

[6] COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 653/2007 on the use of a common European format for safety certificates and application documents in accordance with Article 10 of Directive 2004/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and on the validity of safety certificates delivered under Directive 2001/14/EC (OJ L 153, 14.6.2007, p. 9)

653/2007

[7] COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 445/2011 on a system of certification of entities in charge of maintenance for freight wagons and amending Regulation (EC) No 653/2007 (OJ L 122, 11.0.2011, p. 22)

445/2011

[8] ToR NSA Task Force on Assessment & Supervision 28/8/2012 1.1

[9] ERA Work Programme 2013 1.2

[10] ERA Work Programme 2014 Draft


of 17

2.2. Definitions and Abbreviations

2.2.1. Standard Terms and Abbreviations

2.2.1.1.The general terms and abbreviations used in the present document can be found in a standard dictionary. Furthermore, a glossary of railway terms that focuses primarily on safety and interoperability terminology is available on the Agency website (http://www.era.europa.eu/Document-Register/Pages/Glossary-of-railway-terms.aspx).

2.2.2. Specific Terms and Abbreviations

2.2.2.1.This section defines the specific terms and abbreviations that are used frequently in the present document.

Table 2 : Table of Terms

Term Definition

Agency

The European Railway Agency (ERA) such as established by the Regulation (EC) No 881/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 establishing a European railway agency, as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1335/2008.

Safety Certification The “safety certification” covers primarily the assessment of a safety management system before the issue of a safety certificate; nevertheless it is strongly linked to the concept of “supervision”

Supervision All post-certification supervisory activities aiming to continuously check the implementation and effectiveness of this safety management system

Table 3 : Table of Abbreviations

Abbreviation Meaning

CA Conformity Assessment

CSM Common Safety Method

ERA European Railway Agency

HoS Head of sector

NSA National Safety Authority

PO Project Officer

R&R Roles and Responsibilities

RISC Railway Interoperability and Safety Committee of Member States

RSD Railway Safety Directive

SC Steering Comittee

SMS Safety Management System

SSC Single Safety Certificate

RU Railway Undertaking

SU Safety Unit

TF Task Force

ToR Terms of Reference

WP Work Programme

http://www.era.europa.eu/Document-Register/Pages/Glossary-of-railway-terms.aspx


of 17

3. PROGRAMME DEFINITION The development and implementation of the Single Safety Certificate (SSC) has always been a long term objective according to the principles identified in Articles 6.3(b), 10. 7, 15 and 17.4 of the Safety Directive 2004/49/EC [1]. In February 2011 the Agency provided a Final Report to the European Commission on the

development of a migration strategy towards a single safety certificate [3]1. This Final Report

included the “building blocks” that are necessary to implement a single safety certificate: Implementation and application of the Directives, application of the various CSMs (on conformity assessment, monitoring, supervision and risk assessment), the assessment of the legal framework by the NSA by cross audits, strengthening of the role of the Network NSA, clarification of the role of NSR, simplify, clarify and possibly reduce the types of NSR and especially ensure that they are publicly available to all RUs and evaluation of the SMS implementation. However the Commission’s proposal of recast of Directive [2] as part of the 4th Railway Package sets out a time schedule for the achievement of the SSC. In addition, according to the Commission’s proposal, the Agency will have to play a role in issuing SSC. These changes require some necessary preparatory actions. It is important to consider that some of those actions are needed for the facilitation and the achievement of the SSC whatever happens to the current proposals made in the

4th Railway Package.2.

3.1. Purpose The purpose of the Programme is to make the SSC effective. The date of 2017 is taken as a working

assumption3 for the purpose of building this Programme Plan, taking into account the outcome of

the development of the 4th Railway Package. On this basis the regulatory framework identified in the RSD (in particular CSMs [4] and [5], and regulation [6]) need to be changed to provide the legal basis that should enable making the Single Certificate a reality. The issues that were identified as “preconditions” by the Agency in its Final Report to the European Commission on the development of a migration strategy towards a single safety certificate will continue to be considered as part of the Agency Work Programme (for example, the implementation of a rules management tool regarding the NSR) while this programme plan is focused on the activities needed to accelerate the achievement of a single safety certificate. Also depending on the outcome of the 4th Railway Package, the introduction of new roles and responsibilities needs to be prepared as well inside this framework: the Agency Recommendation to the Commission on the migration to a single EU safety certificate did not cover the scenario in which the task of assessing an applicant’s SMS and consequently granting a single safety certificate

is performed by the Agency5.

Since several workstreams of the Safety Unit of the Agency are linked to the achievement of the SSC, a Programme Management approach is needed to ensure the right momentum. A task force constituted of Railway Interoperability and Safety Committee of Member States (RISC)

1 Principles of this recommendation have been integrated in the Commission’s proposal of recast

of Directive 2004/49/EC as part of the 4th Railway Package

2 Those actions that are necessary for the facilitation and the achievement of the SSC

independently from 4th Railway package outcomes are identified in section 3.2.

3 This flexible deadline will be reviewed according to the final version of the 4th Railway Package

5 Exclusively or optionally according to the type of operation (international cross-border or not)


of 17

representatives will be appointed to drive the programme towards its successful delivery. The Taskforce will be provided with the information collected from the various related projects of the Agency and will contribute to monitoring the efficiency of the overall programme. The reasons for having a TF under the auspice of the RISC are:

1. To ensure the right level of Commitment : the development and delivery of harmonised approaches for assessment and supervision initiated at the level of the National Safety Authorities (including the NSA TF on Assessment & Supervision - [8]) is not delivering results according to a time plan compatible with the expectations of the 4th Railway Package; it must be enlarged to the related stakeholders including MS representatives as well as Sector representatives in order to get the right level of involvement and commitment to make the SSC successful;

2. To provide the necessary Mandate :having a TF at RISC level for driving this programme (which is also paving the way for the Commission’s proposal of recast of Directive 2004/49/EC as part of the 4th Railway Package) will provide the necessary basis for modifying the current regulatory framewok wich is not (yet) part of the current mandate/WP of the Agency ([9] & [10]);

Once agreed at RISC, the present plan shall give the permission to the Agency for initiating the activities, under the monitoring of the TF, that are necessary to set up the SSC regime. If necessary, amendments to this plan (e.g. additional measures, acceleration / postponement) shall be subject to discussion and decision of the RISC. Subsequently, a global mandate for the revision of the current regulatory framework will be subject to vote at RISC.

3.2. Scope The programme aims at managing and monitoring the different workstreams necessary to

implement the SSC. So far, the following key activities6 have been identified:

1. a survey phase7 to evaluate the comprehensiveness of the tasks identified in the

present plan; the main outputs of this phase should be : o a policy paper providing the RISC with information on the elements of the

Programme and confirmation of the achievability of the Programme according to the activities currently proposed in this version of the programme plan; this position paper shall define what is the objective (what is a Single Safety Ceritficate) and the policy to be followed in introducing the various changes and define exactly what will be subject to revision in each CSM (ongoing issues, content, language requirements etc.)

o the survey phase will provide the eventual identification of some missing blocks: besides the revision of CSMs identified hereunder, it could appear necessary to issue new regulation(s)/CSM(s); in particular, the necessity for a “SMS standard” will be analysed during the survey phase (e.g. through an inquiry among RU’s);

o the associated consolidated planning on the basis of the one proposed in the present plan. The detailed tasks within the activities will be further expanded within relevant projects plans.

2. a development phase where several underlying projects will deliver the revision of the legal framework such as :

6 Many of these activities will be managed as separate projects with dedicated project plans

7 Necessary for the facilitation and the achievement of the SSC independently from 4th Railway

package outcomes.


of 17

o CSM CA8 : COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1158/2010: the actual diversity

of application and implementation of the existing legal framework in the area of certification shows that the current CSM CA is not sufficiently detailed to achieve the delivery of the SSC in a harmonised manner. The purpose of this activity is to deliver a more detailed process description and eventually

additional work products (e.g. checklist, tools, decision making criteria, etc.)9

for making the conformity assessment activity steps more specific and to ensure a sufficient level of harmonisation. Remark : the work on the removal of the National Safety Rules (NSRs) will continue alongside with the development of the SSC regime; the resulting situation will require for a certain period a coordination work between the entity issuing the SSC and the relevant NSA; the revision of the CSMs (CA and SU) will clarify further this process in a context where the assesment is eventually performed by several entities.

o CSM SU10

: COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1077/2012: as the concept of

safety certification is not limited to the assessment of a SMS before the issue of a safety certificate, it cannot be separated from post-certification supervisory activities. The changes brought to the CSM CA need to be mirrored in the requirements of the CSM on SU; specifically, in the event in which the task of granting a SSC is performed by the Agency while the task of supervision continues to be driven by NSA’s; a specific attention shall be paid on the enforcement; for example, a revocation process needs to be further developed (in both CSM SU and CSM CA). This is because of the interface that is created between the initial granting entity and the entity initializing the revocation request.

o COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 653/2007: the introduction of the SSC will require to adapt the formats described in this document.

o ECM REGULATION (EU) No 445/2011: the revision of the Regulation 653/2007 could potentially impact the CSM ECM that would need to be revised accordingly (change of format for the SSC will impact the ECM in repealing its annexes).

o Any new development identified as requested during the survey phase. 3. A implementation phase aiming to structure the practical arrangements for facilitating

the setting up of the new SSC framework. So far, the Agency has identified the following activities:

o Application process: for the sake of transparency towards the applying railway undertakings there will be a need for a standard process –including appropriate tailoring guidelines- that describes the fundamental elements that must be incorporated when applying for safety certification according to the new framework defined above;

o Assessment protocols: for consistency in the Agency’s certification practices, there will be a concomitant need for the procedural arrangements to assess the criteria as defined above;

8 Revision is necessary for the facilitation and the achievement of the SSC independently from 4th

Railway package outcomes.

9 The benefit of having a detailed accreditation scheme has been demonstrated when developing

the CSM ECM ([7])

10 Revision is necessary for the facilitation and the achievement of the SSC independently from 4th

Railway package outcomes


of 17

o Competence management system needs to be put in place to prepare a staff able to achieve the intended assessment;

o Coordination arrangements between NSAs and Agency: new interfaces must be defined between the actors (e.g. through dedicated Memorandum of Understanding); for example, the certification scope will continue to encompass network specific requirements that will remain from the NSA responsibility while the SMS core elements could be within the scope of the Agency; in order to issue a SSC, there will be a need for a structured interface between both. Same applies for the passing over of information between Certification findings and the subsequent necessary Supervision activities.

o ERADIS database will need to be adapted to fit the recording facilities with the new format for safety certificates and application document that will come out of a revised version of the 653/2007,

4. Communication11

must be put in place timely in order to inform the sector about the

on-going changes and the practical arrangements that will come into force; 5. Market evaluation: aiming at understanding the likely volume of applications the first

years of implementation of the SSC regime, this market evaluation must be realised in conjunction with the communication activity in order to evaluate at best how the new SSC regime will modify the current pattern of Certificates (Part A – Part B) as reflected by the ERADIS database: today, ERADIS counts about 53 valid cross-border Part B safety certificates. This figure was 35 in 2011. The evolution towards 2017 must be investigated according to a sector survey on the impact of SSC on their future business practises; by providing the evaluation of the estimated market share of the Agency for granting SSC; this will have impact on the recruitment policy and the competence management system of the Agency.

6. Shadow running phase: a probationary phase where the efficiency of the processes and the adequacy of the interfaces between the main actors will be evaluated in regards to the continuing current certification system in place ; the main output will be a final report where fine tuning elements could be identified for improving the new SSC regime before its definitive entry into force;

The scheduling of these activities12

and the related dependencies are provided in the planning

diagram in section 5. As explained above, some “macro-activities” will be expanded in more detail according to the related underlying project planning associated with each activity.

3.3. Objectives

3.3.1. Objective 1: to commit at MS level for an acceleration path towards SSC with all stakeholders The TF will provide the active momentum contributing to the entry into force of a Single Safety Certificate regime. Outputs:

a committing programme (with related planning) towards the SSC regime

11 Necessary for the facilitation and the achievement of the SSC independently from 4th Railway

package outcomes

12 Besides these RISC TF programme activities, other organisational arrangements, e.g. setting up of an appeals

board, translation, fees and fundings will be required before putting the SSC regime into force. But those activities less technically related to the SSC will be driven out of the RISC TF supervision. What’s more, they are transverse to the Agency regulation and need to be tackled accordingly.


of 17

communication within MS to share the view and progress 3.3.2. Objective 2: to act as Sponsoring Group for driving the Agency activities in a SSC-centric perspective The TF will monitor the information from the Agency’s programme for those workstreams that contribute to the delivery of the SSC regime and will act as a catalyst towards SSC. In particular, the TF will supervise the progress on the developments of the activities needed to accelerate the advent of SSC and report it to RISC. The RISC will discuss the progress and – if necessary – decide on adaptation of the programme or additional measures. Outputs:

regular monitoring reports to RISC on the progress made

an effective SSC regime ready to be rolled out in 2017

3.4. Customer The customer of the programme is the European Commission.

3.5. Deliverables The deliverables list mentioned here under is preliminary and will be reviewed later on during the Survey phase or when needed throughout the programme lifecycle. The definitive list of deliverables will be part of the Survey phase report according to the scope and extent of the proposed tasks. The list of deliverables of the various underlying projects is not detailed here because they will be detailed in the related project plans.

Table 4 : Programme deliverables

Item Components Description

Mandate

Mandate for working on the activities necessary to achieve the SSC by revising the various legal documents (CSMs) according to the agreed programme

Several activities identified in the programme will require a mandate for the Agency The present Programme plan (once voted at RISC) serves as the required global mandate for initiating these activities,

Survey report

Committing programme on the activities participating to the achievement of the SSC Consolidated planning based on the project plans of the underlying projects Outcomes from the on-going study “safety certification arrangements

of railway undertakings”

Commitment at MS level on the activities and the related calendar for achieving the SSC based on the results of the Survey Phase and on the agreements on the necessary developments to be realized before the advent of the SSC regime.


of 17

Table 4 : Programme deliverables

Item Components Description

Policy Paper Before starting the development phase this documents aims at defining the

The Policy paper will provide Information on the elements of the programme :

objective reminder: what is the “Single Safety Ceritficate”

policy driving the various changes

definition of what will be subject to revision in each CSM

eventual identification of some missing blocks (new regulation(s)/CSM(s)

position regarding the necessity for a “SMS standard”

Monitoring dashboard

Progress in the various workstreams of the programme scope:

CSM CA

CSM SU

CSM ECM

653/2007

Application process

Assessment protocols

Competence Management System

Coordination arrangements with NSAs

ERADIS modifications

Maintaining a dashboard of the main achievements expected on these work products according to the detailed planning of those activities.

Communication plan Dissemination workshops and specific information to be delivered to stakeholders within MS

The purpose is to inform the sector about the on-going changes and the practical arrangements that will come into force with the new SSC regime

Market survey

ERADIS Database Inputs from the sector on how the SSC regime could influence the way they will apply for SSC in future

The target is to evaluate how many application cases will be introduced in the first years of the entry into force of the SSC

Shadow Running end of phase report

Application of the resulting SSC detailed process on a selection of Certification cases

By exercising the new process and comparing to the process still currently on-going, it will be possible to derisk the programme, and to improve it before its actual entry into force. The shadow running phase will consist in testing of the certification process and consistent application by the Agency on applications for safety certificates received by selected NSAs

Progress reports to RISC Outcomes of various phases Monitoring dashboard

At the end of each phase and at least yearly, a summary of the key progresses that have been made should be presented to EC and to other MS during RISC meeting. (Refer also to section 4.6. Monitoring and control)

Final Report

Description of the purpose of the project, the developed methodology lessons learned during the project and next steps for the implementation of the SSC

At the end of the project a final report will be written to summarise the lessons learned and the improvements made on the field of Safety Certification. The report will be distributed to all operational units in the Agency, the MSs, and the NSA as well as to the EC and RISC.


of 17

4. ORGANISATION

4.1. RISC Task Force

To ensure the success of the programme, the RISC sets up a Task Force chaired by the Commission.

The Agency provides the TF secretary.

All RISC members are invited to take part on a voluntary base. However, the number of participants will be limited for better efficiency.

The programme is dependent on the participation of representatives from the volunteer Member States. For that reason, the RISC members representing Member States shall appoint contact persons in the Ministry and in the NSA of each of the participating states.

Representatives of the sector will also be invited to join in. In particular RUs are welcome to apply through their respective Representative Bodies.

The Commission will proceed to the section (when needed) and appointment of the RISC TF participants.

Table 5 : Examples of competencies expected for the Task Force on SSC

Competency 1 Competency 2 Competency 3

Safety management systems

Assessment of safety management systems before issuing a safety certificate or safety authorisation.

Knowledge of the requirements of the CSM on assessing conformity (and/or the CSM on Supervision).

As soon as the names of the contact persons have been confirmed, these will be available together with their contact information in Annex I.

4.2. Steering Committee The interface with the Agency workstreams will be ensured by a Steering Committee (internal to the Agency) acting as the Programme Board. The Steering Committee is chaired by the Head of the Agency’s Safety Unit. The programme coordinator (acting as TF secretary) will report to the Steering Committee of the progress made in the various activities monitored within the TF programme.

4.3. Other Stakeholder(s) 4.3.1. The Commission

The chairmanship of the TF is given to the EC

As the 4th railway package is being negotiated, a key point is the mandate for the Agency to issue the Single Safety Certificate. It is therefore important for the programme to be informed about the outcome of these negotiations, and vice versa for the programme to keep the EC informed about the outcome of the TF. The contact point for this information flow will be the Programme


of 17

Requester. Although this is foreseen to take place during informal meetings, the EC will also be briefed in a more formal way via the various end-of-phase reports.

4.3.2. Member States

The Member States that are not directly involved in the TF will be informed about the progress of the programme through the various intermediate reports scheduled according to the phasing described before. The programme team shall also do presentations about the programme at RISC and NSA plenary meetings.

4.3.3. Participating projects Through the special focus on the achievement of the SSC (see Agency Work Programmes 2013 and 2014), the Safety Unit has to prioritise its work accordingly. Consequently, many workstreams of the Unit will be affected during the TF duration either as information providers or as delivering entities of partial work products SSC-dedicated. Among those Agency workstreams, you can find (non exhaustive list) :

Developing harmonised SMS principles

Developing overall principles for assessment and supervision

Monitoring safety performance

Monitoring NSA performance

Monitoring of the SMS based certification regime (incl. NSR)

Promoting a harmonised safety regulatory framework

Promoting NSA cooperation and providing assistance (incl training)

Promoting transparency and reduction of National Safety Rules The Unit does therefore need to be involved even more frequently than only in the critical milestones of the TF. That is why a steering committee is chosen for managing the programme internally. According to the necessity, it is envisaged that dedicated brainstorming sessions will be held with some of the Project officers involved in projects with direct impact on the SSC. The contact with those PO’s will be done through the programme coordinator and eventually the Steering Committee (more specifically through the participating HoSs).

4.4. Roles and Responsibilities 4.4.1. At Task Force level The TF is responsible for delivering the Programme through its monitoring activity and through proposing corrective actions when necessary. Their proposals will be presented at RISC. The TF shall set up a consultation mechanisms with the sector and NSA representatives to allow them to contribute to the discussion. This may include the Joint Network Secretariat The chairmanship of the TF is given to the EC. The TF will be convened on a quarterly basis - preferably back to back with RISC meetings. Standing agenda item of each meeting will be the planning and review of the Programme, focusing on the objectives and outputs. Besides those progress meetings, there could be several working sessions on dedicated topics (specific survey report analysis, brainstorming session etc.). The number of those working sessions needs to be decided as part of the consolidated planning and confirmed during the first meeting of each year.


of 17

The TF has to report to RISC. 4.4.2. At Agency Level The Agency is responsible for carrying out all activities of the Programme in line with the requirements of the programme plan and the RISC. The Agency will provide the TF secretary, which shall prepare the meetings and assist the EC in their management, including the preparation of documents and reports on the progress of

underlying projects constituting the programme. Invitation letters and an agenda shall be sent to all appointed members of the TF at least 6 weeks before the date of the meeting. TF members can request that items are included on the agenda for discussion. A summary of the main points discussed and an action list will be circulated by the Agency no later than a month following the meeting. The Agency will also create a collaboration space on the Extranet for the TF to enhance communication and to share with other RISC members. The TF will also conduct correspondence using emails and other documents produced for comment. The roles and responsibilities within the Agency are the following:

Steering Committee Leader (Chris Carr - CC): Ensures the programme meets its objectives; promotes the collaboration among the participating projects within the Agency (Programme approach); reports to the TF.

TF Secretary (Hugues Delsoir - HD): makes sure that the programme is moving forward, fulfilling its objectives while taking the interests of the stakeholders into account. Responsible for organising the programme team and keeping the Steering Committee informed about progress, signalling any problems – including suggested mitigations – as soon as they turn up.

Programme team: carries out the organisation and managing of the Programmes’s work streams.

4.5. Structure The reporting lines and programme governance of the programme are set out below:


of 17

Agency’s Executive

Director

Head of Unit

Chris Carr

Programme

coordinator

Hugues Delsoir

Other Programme

Team Members

Other Agency Units/

Sectors/projects

Sponsoring Group

RISC Task Force on

Single Safety Certificate

RISC

European Commission

Legal AdvisorNSA /NRB

Network

Programme Team

Programme Board

Other external

parties

Steering Committee

Head of Sector

Supervision and

Investigation

Figure 1: Programme structure.

4.6. Monitoring and control

The programme will be monitored and controlled through progress reports and meetings according to the following:

Activity Description Frequency Participants Resp. Programme team meetings

This frequency has been chosen in order to monitor the progress of the programme and identify problems at an early stage.

Monthly Programme team HD

Progress reports to SC

The Steering Committee will be provided with a one page report on a monthly basis, summarising the activities carried out since the last report.

Monthly HD

Steering Committee meetings

The Steering Committee needs to be updated on a regular basis in order to manage the information flow to the TF on the monitoring issue.

Quarterly in advance to TF meeting

Steering Committee and TF Secretary

CC

Progress reports to TF

The TF will be provided with a progress report quarterly.

Quarterly before TF meetings

HD

TF meetings TF meetings are convened on quarterly basis

Quarterly before RISC meeting

TF members, Steering Committee, TF Secretary

TF

Progress reports to RISC

The RISC will be provided with a progress report quarterly which contains the outcomes of the TF discussions and recommendations made for RISC.

Quarterly TF


of 17

4.7. Communication Plan

Because of the importance of the topic and the necessity of the involvement of all key players in the development of proposals for the single safety certificate, the TF should at all times be transparent and open in and take into account the views and interests of all players involved in the EU railway system. Therefore key documents and recommendations will be made available for consultation and review.

Table 6 : Communication plan

Communication Description Frequency Format Owner Recipient / Attendees

Annual report (external communication)

TF will prepare a report on the latest development which will be made publically available.

Beginning of each year

ERA’s website

TF & Agency

Public


of 17

5. PROGRAMME TIME PLAN

Figure 2: Programme schedule (GANTT)


of 17

6. PROGRAMME RISKS

Table 7 : Programme risks

Description Likelihood Impact Risk level Mitigating Actions

Adverse impact of the discussions on the 4th Railway Package putting on hold progress of the TF (Including not enough economical resources)

Low Medium Medium

EC chairmanship Regular strategic level meetings between the Programme Requester and Commission (bi-lateral meetings) and co-ordination on the development of new policies and tasks before they are implemented Adequate reporting and monitoring at Steering Committee level Steering Committee meetings with all Heads of Sector

Insufficient/poor participation of stakeholders

High Medium High Committing planning of RISC Members Adequate pressure on SSC

Complex programme Medium Medium Medium

Adequate selection of the programme team and TF representatives (experienced), looking for external experts if needed; continuous control by the Programme coordinator and adequate level of communication within the projects, and with the involved stakeholders

Programme impacting several side projects

High Medium Medium Continuous control by steering comitee-ensuring projects coordination and coherence among them

Several workgroups involved Low Medium Low

Control by Programme coordinator ensuring adequate coordination and communication; establishment of clear responsibilities and decision making process; planning and preparation of meetings with enough time in advance; development of a communication plan, if needed; adequate control and dissemination of reference documents and developed documents

Unsifficient progress on maturing the system

Medium Medium Medium

Detailed programme plan; continuous monitoring and control by Programme coordinator; including additional support staff if possible

Innovative programme to which the problems that may arise during its implementation are unknown a priori

Medium High Medium Shadow Running phase foreseen for derisking the implementation