Cableways Impact Assessment Study - Final Report - saferail.nl
Cableways Impact Assessment Study - Final Report - saferail.nl Cableways Impact Assessment Study - Final Report - saferail.nl
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
- Page 67 and 68: Risk & Policy Analysts Price Change
- Page 69 and 70: Risk & Policy Analysts 2.6.4 Summar
- Page 71 and 72: Risk & Policy Analysts Table 3.1: C
- Page 73 and 74: Risk & Policy Analysts 3.3 Impacts
- Page 75 and 76: Risk & Policy Analysts 3.3.4 Impact
- Page 77 and 78: Risk & Policy Analysts 4. OPTIONS F
- Page 79 and 80: Risk & Policy Analysts Box 4.1: The
- Page 81 and 82: Risk & Policy Analysts The details
- Page 83 and 84: Risk & Policy Analysts Overall, sta
- Page 85 and 86: Risk & Policy Analysts Option 2 (
- Page 87 and 88: Risk & Policy Analysts subject to E
- Page 89 and 90: Risk & Policy Analysts Table 4.13:
- Page 91 and 92: Risk & Policy Analysts Table 4.14:
- Page 93 and 94: Risk & Policy Analysts out in Table
- Page 95 and 96: Risk & Policy Analysts Table 5.2: K
- Page 97 and 98: Risk & Policy Analysts One example
- Page 99 and 100: Risk & Policy Analysts At least two
- Page 101 and 102: Risk & Policy Analysts Option A3 (R
- Page 103 and 104: Risk & Policy Analysts The cost of
- Page 105 and 106: Risk & Policy Analysts requirements
- Page 107 and 108: Risk & Policy Analysts may come to
- Page 109 and 110: Risk & Policy Analysts Operating Co
- Page 111 and 112: Risk & Policy Analysts Innovation a
- Page 113 and 114: Risk & Policy Analysts To this end,
- Page 115 and 116: Risk & Policy Analysts respondents
- Page 117: Risk & Policy Analysts Innovation a
- Page 121 and 122: Risk & Policy Analysts Public Autho
- Page 123 and 124: Risk & Policy Analysts Is the cab
- Page 125 and 126: Risk & Policy Analysts Impact on Co
- Page 127 and 128: Risk & Policy Analysts Option F3:
- Page 129 and 130: Risk & Policy Analysts However, the
- Page 131 and 132: Risk & Policy Analysts 5.3.7 Proble
- Page 133 and 134: Risk & Policy Analysts Public Healt
- Page 135 and 136: Risk & Policy Analysts 6.2 Problem
- Page 137 and 138: Risk & Policy Analysts 6.6 Problem
- Page 139 and 140: Risk & Policy Analysts Commision de
- Page 141 and 142: Risk & Policy Analysts Kaiser (nd):
- Page 143 and 144: Risk & Policy Analysts STRMTG (2012
- Page 145 and 146: Risk & Policy Analysts ANNEX 1 Over
- Page 147 and 148: Risk & Policy Analysts A1. CONSULTA
- Page 149 and 150: Risk & Policy Analysts feedback was
- Page 151 and 152: Risk & Policy Analysts ANNEX 2 Revi
- Page 153 and 154: Risk & Policy Analysts B2. REVIEW O
- Page 155 and 156: Risk & Policy Analysts Table B2.2:
- Page 157 and 158: Risk & Policy Analysts Table B2.4:
- Page 159 and 160: Risk & Policy Analysts Table B2.9:
- Page 161 and 162: Risk & Policy Analysts Table B2.12:
- Page 163 and 164: Risk & Policy Analysts Table B2.15:
- Page 165 and 166: Risk & Policy Analysts Table B2.20:
- Page 167 and 168: Risk & Policy Analysts Table B2.23:
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