Cableways Impact Assessment Study - Final Report - saferail.nl

IA Study Concerning the Revision of the Cableways Directive
safety components (i.e. a list that is not legally binding) and this appears to be
working well as there have been no major discussions/disagreements on this issue in
the past two to three years. A similar point was also made by a notified body.
In addition, it is possible that some of these problems may have been caused by
insufficient expertise and experience in some Member States, thus suggesting that
solutions based on guidance may be sufficient in assisting stakeholders in these
Member States. The Slovenian national authority noted that for people with sufficient
expertise in the cableways sector these issues do not pose problems but could be a
problem for authorities which do not have a lot of experience. However, the
Slovenian national authority also noted that the explanations given in the Application
Guide are not always unambiguous. Similarly, an Austrian notified body stated that
these definitions are clear to all notified bodies that are active with regard to assessing
cableway products (as opposed to bodies which hold a valid notification for the
Cableways Directive but rarely approve any products).
Summary of Stakeholder Views
As noted in Table 4.4, in the first round of consultation most national authorities (15
of 22) and notified bodies (3 of 5) that responded to consultation agreed that it is
necessary to introduce a non-exhaustive list of safety components in the Directive in
order to clarify the differences between safety components and subsystems.
However, from the second round of consultation it is evident that stakeholders hold a
wide variety of views on how problems with the relevant terms could be solved.
Importantly, the wide variety of views does not make it possible to identify one option
that would be preferred by all stakeholders. However, the following general
observations can be made on the basis of the information provided:
all but one competent authority that expressed an opinion (12 of 13) would
support some kind of change (either under Option C2 or C3); and
a number of stakeholders, in particular cableway manufacturers, fear that Option
C3A (inclusion of a non-exhaustive list of safety components in the Directive)
may limit manufacturers’ flexibility. Several manufacturers are also opposed to
Option C3 in general.
As regards competent authorities, notified bodies and manufacturers, those
stakeholders that expressed support for Option C2 do so because it permits the
creation of a non-exhaustive list which could be updated and amended when
necessary in the Application Guide. Also, Option C2 is preferred by some
stakeholders because Option C3 (particularly Option C3A) is thought to be too rigid,
prescriptive and inflexible. Some respondents also consider that Option C3 is not
feasible, would be counterproductive and would limit the flexibility, innovation and
research and development activities of manufacturers. However, those respondents
who support Option C3 do so because it is a more sensible approach from a regulatory
viewpoint which would ensure that all explanations are located within one document
which would avoid the potential for confusion. Furthermore, there are some
Page 102