Cableways Impact Assessment Study - Final Report - saferail.nl

Cableways Impact Assessment Study - Final Report - saferail.nl Cableways Impact Assessment Study - Final Report - saferail.nl

04.07.2015 Views

IA Study Concerning the Revision of the Cableways Directive significantly between Member States, with no clear picture emerging at the EU level. Given the potential risks associated with Option C3, it is proposed to further consider implementing Option C2. 5.3.4 Problem Area D: Changing Conformity Assessment of Subsystems Summary of the Aims of Intervention and of the Relevant Policy Options As regards the conformity evaluation procedure of the subsystems, Annex VII of the Cableways Directive does not provide a specific conformity assessment module for the conformity evaluation of subsystems. The Cableways Directive requires notified bodies to check subsystems but does not give any indication on how they should do it. It is suggested that this situation has led to divergent interpretations and implementation of the conformity evaluation of the subsystems. For this reason, the introduction of a conformity assessment module specifically conceived for the subsystems is worthy of consideration. To this end, the following policy options are considered: Option D2: Amending the Application Guide to recommend using specific conformity assessment modules for the assessment of subsystems; and Option D3: Amending Annex VII to the Cableways Directive to allow the use of specific conformity assessment modules for the assessment of subsystems. Additional Information on the Significance of the Problem to be Addressed Based on consultation, it appears that the current Directive may be interpreted by some stakeholders to mean that notified bodies have to perform an on-site check of how subsystems have been assembled and incorporated into the installation. This appears to relate to Article 2 in Annex VII (Subsystems: Assessment of Conformity) of the Directive. Article 2 reads as follows: “The examination of the subsystem is carried out at each of the following stages: design, construction and acceptance trials once the subsystem has been completed.” In this respect it is of interest that a cableways manufacturer noted that most subsystems are assembled on-site. However, it has been noted that it is not feasible for notified bodies that approve subsystems, which are used in a large number of installations, to carry out on-site inspections for each installation that includes the relevant subsystem. Therefore, it has been alleged that in practice on-site inspections are not carried out. Instead, subsystems are widely assessed by means of conformity assessment modules that do not require an on-site inspection. Information provided by consultation thus supports the contention that the legal requirements and practices for the conformity assessment of subsystems may be interpreted in different ways by different stakeholders. Page 106

Risk & Policy Analysts Summary of Stakeholder Views Broadly speaking, most stakeholders who provided responses to the consultation have expressed support for the proposed change. Based on the responses gathered from competent authorities, notified bodies and cableway manufacturers, it is suggested that the majority of stakeholders favour the implementation of Option D3 as this is legally binding and is the most logical option from a regulatory standpoint. Option D3 is also considered to provide legal clarity and the harmonisation of practices. However, it is important to note that Option D3 is the preferred Option based on the stakeholders consulted; many of whom also state that their experience in this area is limited. Furthermore, some stakeholders also state the policy change in this area is not considered to be necessary but would support Option D3 because it is binding for all Members States, ensuring a uniform approach from all EU member countries. It is important to note that support for Option D3 was achieved across the different stakeholder groups consulted (competent authorities, notified bodies and manufacturers). In addition, the Czech cableway operators association stated that they would welcome clarity in this regard. Only two cableways operator associations (Austria and Finland) stated that there is no need to enable the use of conformity assessment modules for the assessment of subsystems. The remaining cableways operators (Switzerland, Germany, France and Slovenia) do not have an opinion on this issue. FIANET pointed to potential costs arising from any change to the current regime but also to the need for a simple and unified approach (possibly consisting of one module only), thus expressing some support for policy action (in particular for Option D2). Impact on the Internal Market and Competition It appears that the proposed options would have benefits in terms of harmonising legal requirements on the conformity assessment of subsystems. However, there are indications that modules are already widely used for conformity assessment of subsystems and as such no significant change is expected to occur as a result of Options D2 or D3. Overall, Option D2, due to its non-binding nature is seen as not addressing the problem of the disparity between legal requirements and practice. Overall, no significant impacts on consumer choice, prices, competition, barriers to entry, monopolies or market segmentation are expected. Impact on Competitiveness, Trade and Investment Flows Legal certainty would be achieved which can be expected to have a positive impact on notified bodies in the sector as well as on trade with subsystems. Operating Costs and Conduct of Business/SMEs As modules already appear to be widely used, there would be no significant impacts on companies’ operating costs from Options D2 and D3. The cost structure is also not Page 107

IA <strong>Study</strong> Concerning the Revision of the <strong>Cableways</strong> Directive<br />

significantly between Member States, with no clear picture emerging at the EU level.<br />

Given the potential risks associated with Option C3, it is proposed to further consider<br />

implementing Option C2.<br />

5.3.4 Problem Area D: Changing Conformity <strong>Assessment</strong> of Subsystems<br />

Summary of the Aims of Intervention and of the Relevant Policy Options<br />

As regards the conformity evaluation procedure of the subsystems, Annex VII of the<br />

<strong>Cableways</strong> Directive does not provide a specific conformity assessment module for<br />

the conformity evaluation of subsystems. The <strong>Cableways</strong> Directive requires notified<br />

bodies to check subsystems but does not give any indication on how they should do it.<br />

It is suggested that this situation has led to divergent interpretations and<br />

implementation of the conformity evaluation of the subsystems. For this reason, the<br />

introduction of a conformity assessment module specifically conceived for the<br />

subsystems is worthy of consideration.<br />

To this end, the following policy options are considered:<br />

<br />

<br />

Option D2: Amending the Application Guide to recommend using specific<br />

conformity assessment modules for the assessment of subsystems; and<br />

Option D3: Amending Annex VII to the <strong>Cableways</strong> Directive to allow the use of<br />

specific conformity assessment modules for the assessment of subsystems.<br />

Additional Information on the Significance of the Problem to be Addressed<br />

Based on consultation, it appears that the current Directive may be interpreted by<br />

some stakeholders to mean that notified bodies have to perform an on-site check of<br />

how subsystems have been assembled and incorporated into the installation. This<br />

appears to relate to Article 2 in Annex VII (Subsystems: <strong>Assessment</strong> of Conformity)<br />

of the Directive. Article 2 reads as follows:<br />

“The examination of the subsystem is carried out at each of the following stages:<br />

design,<br />

construction and acceptance trials once the subsystem has been<br />

completed.”<br />

In this respect it is of interest that a cableways manufacturer noted that most<br />

subsystems are assembled on-site. However, it has been noted that it is not feasible<br />

for notified bodies that approve subsystems, which are used in a large number of<br />

installations, to carry out on-site inspections for each installation that includes the<br />

relevant subsystem. Therefore, it has been alleged that in practice on-site inspections<br />

are not carried out. Instead, subsystems are widely assessed by means of conformity<br />

assessment modules that do not require an on-site inspection.<br />

Information provided by consultation thus supports the contention that the legal<br />

requirements and practices for the conformity assessment of subsystems may be<br />

interpreted in different ways by different stakeholders.<br />

Page 106

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!