Cableways Impact Assessment Study - Final Report - saferail.nl

IA Study Concerning the Revision of the Cableways Directive
also be used for occasional transport of passengers. There are approximately 100
such installations in Austria and it has been argued that the exemption for industrial
installations in Article 1.6 of the Cableways Directive is not sufficiently clear in this
respect. However, as this issue is not directly relevant to Policy Options A2 and A3,
it is not considered further in this report.
A cableway manufacturer noted that they were aware of two or three mixed purpose
installations (in addition to the Wieli System) but these are located outside of the EU.
The UK competent authority further stated that they experienced one case where it
was not easy to determine whether an installation served a transport or a leisure
function. This related to a rail mounted installation intended for transporting visitors
between a car park and an adjacent amusement park.
Other stakeholders (including competent authorities, operators and cableway and
subsystem manufacturers) have not identified any such systems or problems with such
installations.
Summary of Stakeholder Views
Based on the responses received to consultation, many stakeholders (with the
exception of manufacturers of dry toboggan runs and Alpine coasters that might be
opposed to policy action in general; please also note that the views of cableway
operators are also dealt with separately further in this section) would prefer for
changes to be enacted through Option A3 rather than Option A2. The majority of
competent authorities, notified bodies and manufacturers, from whom responses to
consultation were received, express a preference for Option A3. Option A3 is
preferred as it is considered that this Option will ensure that there are no ‘grey areas’
and will ensure that adoption is conducted in a universal and binding manner across
all EU Member States, avoiding any potential for confusion.
Of the 18 competent authorities who responded, 12 would prefer changes to be
enacted through Option A3, three would prefer Option A2, and the remaining three do
not believe any change is necessary. Of the three notified bodies who responded to
consultation, three supported Option A3 and one did not support any change. Two of
the five manufacturers of cableways and manufacturers of subsystems and safety
components, who responded to consultation, support Option A3, two do not believe
any change is required (but if it were implemented, one would prefer Option A2) and
one supports Option A2. Please note that despite expressing preference for Option
A3, most respondents have not provided any information on past problems or
installations that would be newly included into the scope of the Directive.
In addition, the operator associations from France, Germany, Austria and Switzerland
indicated that they do not support an extension of the Cableways Directive by means
of adopting Recital 1 into the legal text of the Directive. The Finnish operators
association stated that they were in favour of legislative change but the Slovenian
association did not see any need to change the current provisions. Please note that the
above views of operators’ associations only relate to one of the two elements of
Page 88