Cableways Impact Assessment Study - Final Report - saferail.nl

Risk & Policy Analysts
To this end, the following policy options are proposed:
Option C2: Clarifying the distinction between these terms in the Application
Guide, for example, by introducing a non-exhaustive list of safety components;
and
Option C3: More explicitly exclude series-produced components from the
definition of infrastructure and either:
o Sub-option C3A: introduce a non-exhaustive list of safety components; or
o Sub-option C3B: define sub-systems.
Please note that there are differences between Options C2 and C3, other than that
whether they implement changes by means of soft or hard law. Option C2 reflects the
fact that the Application Guide to the Cableways Directive already includes some of
the relevant provisions, such as additional explanations about the boundary between
infrastructure and the rest of the installation and a definition of subsystems.
Additional Information on the Significance of the Problem to be Addressed
While some stakeholders recognised the existence of problems with these definitions,
it should be noted that the extent of these problems may depend on individual
stakeholder experiences, the reference time period and the Member State in which the
stakeholder is located.
As noted in Table 4.4 and Table 4.5 and further corroborated by the second round of
consultation, there is a certain proportion of stakeholders that have experienced
problems while other stakeholders believe that the current situation is clear enough.
Examples of problems include Slovakia stating that they experienced problems with
regards carrying out conformity assessments of subsystems, determining the
boundaries between infrastructure and subsystems, and determining which products
are safety components. In addition, a Czech stakeholder stated that the status quo
causes problems for notified bodies with regard to subsystems and safety components
and the boundary between infrastructure and other parts is not clearly set. This results
in different interpretations and it is suspected this may be impacting safety; although
no specific examples have been provided. During a joint interview with the Czech
national authority and the Czech Cableways Operators Association, it was highlighted
that these terms are not even clear to the manufacturers. A Swiss cableway
manufacturer also identified differences in interpretation between Member States (e.g.
FR and AT) but this is not seen as a problem.
Generally speaking, it is possible that these problems have been becoming smaller
over time and in some Member States problems were experienced shortly after the
entry of the Directive into force. But over time procedures and processes have been
established to deal with them and/or more experience with these issues has been
gathered. For example, three manufacturers (of cableways and subsystems) have
noted that while problems have been experienced in the past, solution-oriented
approaches/simple rules have been developed that have resulted in these problems
disappearing. In addition, it was stated that in Austria there is an informal list of
Page 101